[GEM-dev] how close are we...

[chris clepper]

>guenter geiger wrote:
>>>MANIPS
>>>polygon_smooth
>>
>>I think the naming concept is a bit strange with that. The underscore
>>suggests that it belongs to a group of objects (like pix_ part_ ext),
>>while it doesn't, and it is rather a "normal" gem OpenGL command.
>>
>>It would be more consistent to call it "smooth", plain, like "alpha".
>
>very right,
>in my last mail, concerning the "blend" functionality, i have 
>forwarded this old email, where "polygon_smooth" was considered a 
>bad name (but better than "pix_a_2grey") but i had no other idea.
>
>so i will remove "polygon_smooth" and call it "smooth", as i guess 
>nobody has really used it - chris ? (i think you might be the only 
>one...).
>and we could really add an alias for compatibilty.
>

i think there might be a smooth object already.  i know my friend had 
to name his smoothing object for float streams 'smoooth' to avoid 
conflicts - this may have only been for Max, I'll double check. 
maybe geo_smooth (geosmooth?  polysmooth?) is more descriptive?  i 
suppose another option is adding FSAA to the whole scene, but this 
may not be an option on all platforms and hardware.