@martinsiegrist This is a little weird, because we say: You subtract from something, something else. Not, You subtract from something, with something.
But I agree that the second prompt should still be changed. If you like the preposition at the end, it’s OK for me, too. How about Select now objects that are subtracted… as the second prompt?
This is unfortunately not a very well crafted phrase in English… Generally Rhino prompts do not refer to time, so the ‘now’ is not necessary. Plus the ‘are’ is a common grammar mistake by people coming from other languages - in common usage, are implies an existing state (“These are done”) which is not the case when you are choosing the objects to subtract - they have not yet been subtracted.
It’s actually fairly difficult to make short command prompts that are clear and concise. For me the surface/polysurface BooleanDifference prompts are more or less OK, the first prompt
Select surfaces or polysurfaces to subtract from
is good, the second prompt
Select surfaces or polysurfaces to subtract *with*
could be simply
Select surfaces or polysurfaces to subtract
But it could also be
Select surfaces or polysurfaces to remove
What is most important is consistency, all the Boolean operations should have the same prompts, no matter what types of objects they involve.
Hi Mitch, I know this is correct and shorter than “Select surfaces or polysurfaces to subtract from” but when the from is removed it makes me think a lot harder. Probably because it sounds/reds too similar to “Select surfaces or polysurfaces that subtract” which would be the opposite.
I think the ‘from’ should stay. And then having a parallel stricture with ‘substract with’ would be ideal.
I also think that…
The word remove should not be used, yet. Rhino’s Boolean command are still too limited and unsophisticated, because there no subtlety of what intersection sections coincident in a Boolean need to be removed and which ones need to be ignored. I hope this evolves in the future, and only then a second prompt is introduce to ask uses to pick which Boolean results to remove/keep (toggle function).
This “are” is here for the passive form. Meshes “that are being subtracted” would be preferable in your option?
I suppose that removing the “with” is enough. It’s the origin of this change. I’m only worried that the two prompts are very similar now:
Select meshes [...] to subtract from Select meshes [...] to subtract
No, because “being” implies that the action is already in progress - which it is not, as you haven’t made the selection yet. You could use “Meshes to be subtracted” though, which implies a future condition, i.e. it has not yet happened.
