>>259532A brief history lesson, since you don't seem to recall how we came to be here: This started with you or someone else asserting (
>>259084) that
>>258931 use of "rendered" was correct usage. I linked the wiktionary page for "render" in which you can see there is no definition for the word which means the application of a preset filter/process as was done by
>>258931. In
>>259243, you then quote the closest definition wherein the terms means, broadly, to turn something into something else.
Now, while in a very loose and broad sense of the word (i.e. he took an existing thing and did something to it), "renderer" anon did technically do that, your implication that "to render" absolutely means "to apply that filter" restricts and reduces a definition that only ever worked if you first interpret it in the loosest possible sense and then boil it down into something entirely unrelated to the original definition, which was restrictive in a completely different direction.
>You've taken Definition A, inferred that it means Loose Definition A, then reduced LDA down to become Definition B, which no longer resembles Definition A.The onus is not on me to show you a dictionary definition where "to render" means "to ____ a font" or "to ____ a layer comp" (I'm not clear on what you mean when you use the word in either of these phrases, by the way). You're the one who in the first place claimed that "renderer" anon's use of the term was correct. The onus is on you to explain how the other anon's use of the term to mean "apply that filter that everyone's doing these days" is, as you claim, correct.
If you don't know something is true, best not to claim it is true to the exclusion of evidence to the contrary. This makes you appear foolhardy and makes it hard for you to back down and admit error, as we're now seeing.
(1/2)
