Doug Moen

@t-paul: The part() operator is a module; it takes a shape as an argument, and returns another shape. Ditto for color(). Semantically, they have the same domain and range as...

t-paul: Are you suggesting that the part() operator should be applicable to variable, function or modules definitions? If so, this makes no sense to me. In my mind, part() is...

@kintel: The proposed API for the part(), color() and material() modules is a pure functional interface that is completely abstract. This means the interface is independent of the underlying implementation....

@t-paul wrote "Yes, the modifier # could be a short-cut, but what I mean is, it's attached to the node, which is why it's not possible to write # {...

@t-paul wrote "Yes, the modifier # could be a short-cut, but what I mean is, it's attached to the node, which is why it's not possible to write # {...

The original implementation of `color()` did not support an alpha channel, and did not support symbolic color names. So the original interface was `color([r,g,b])`. When we upgraded the language to...

Thanks, Bob, I based the color() proposal on your work. Maybe your fork can be used to create the color() implementation. In AMF, there is a two level hierarchy. There...

@guowcas: it's not an assembly tree, because there isn't a tree. The parts are disjoint, they are not related by parent/child relationships. Maybe what's confusing is my choice of the...