actually think the real lines of code is a better metric as it means that much needs to be processed by the eye
@axic yul has many small files, so tons of license comments
@ekpyron isn't it a problem if there are multiple cut vertices?
argh, modifier override checks are almost not implemented ::rage::
checking the override set is not done, ambiguous overrides are not done
Haven't looked into modifiers or state variables yet... but no - multiple cut vertices are exactly not a problem, if I just remove all "above" them - only the "lowest" cut vertex is relevant anyways, so removing stuff above "higher" ones doesn't matter and I'm always left with the correct stuff "below the lowest" cut vertex.
But yeah - you're change using inheritedFunctions is almost right - it's almost the same as the nonOverridenBaseFunctions I had.
But it contains constructors, so you have to exclude them.
But otherwise it's exactly the same set...
Adding modifiers should also be no big deal because they have a shared base
Hm, we should probably exclude costructors in the inheritedfunctions function already
Ah i see! I was thinking about parallel cut vertices, actually
Shouldnt we exclude that casex
What's a "parallel cut vertex" :-)?
If there's more than one parallel one, then it's not a cut vertex...