Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update threejs-fundamentals.md #122

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AjaxPop
Copy link

@AjaxPop AjaxPop commented Aug 23, 2020

I made some changes to a paragraph. I fixed the grammar. Also, I improved the readability of the text.

I made some changes to a paragraph. I fixed the grammar. Also, I improved the readability of the text.
Copy link
Contributor

@Lecrapouille Lecrapouille left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry my English is poor, I'm not sure to understand sentences. My suggestions are quoted.

Note there are some esoteric details here. For three.js to work, it must
have a canvas. You have a choice of either passing a canvas into three.js
or not. If you decide not to pass a canvas into three.js, a canvas will be
created for you. The canvas that was created will still have to be added to
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should not be: ... a canvas will be created for you. Anyway, in both cases the canvas that was created will still have to be added to ...

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

thx bro

your document. I think passing a canvas to three.js feels more flexible
because the canvas can be put anywhere, and the code will still find it.
Otherwise, not passing in a canvas into three.js might cause two problems.
First, your use case might change. Lastly, changes will have to be made
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should not the . be a : instead ? So: two problems: - firstly, your use case might change; - secondly, changes ...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... your use case might change ... => your use case might change: modify its localization

or not. If you decide not to pass a canvas into three.js, a canvas will be
created for you. The canvas that was created will still have to be added to
your document. I think passing a canvas to three.js feels more flexible
because the canvas can be put anywhere, and the code will still find it.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... can be put anywhere ... => can be place anywhere inside the document ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... and the code will still find it ... => and the code will still know where to locate it

because the canvas can be put anywhere, and the code will still find it.
Otherwise, not passing in a canvas into three.js might cause two problems.
First, your use case might change. Lastly, changes will have to be made
to the code.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... to the code. => ... in the code source.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants