On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:24:04 +0100, "Alan Smith" <ala### [at] aurora-ukcom>
wrote:
> Firstly, my experiance comes from having designed and developed
> software since 1978, I wrote my first (of many) parser/compiler at
> age 17, I have written my own Raytracer as a project more than
> 15 years ago, can program in more languages and several processors
> assembly code than I can shake a stick at.

Honestly, then I don't understand even more your feature request. On one hand
you can go to sources and check if it is easy to incorporate this feature and
if it is just do it. On second hand I really surprized you really think 'cm'
is more readable when you showed your experience. In my intuition it is
"useless by default" :-) The only benefit of adding some postfixes I can
imagine are those like in complex numbers in D language:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/cppcomplex.html

> Secondly, you are clearly either too arrogant or too stupid not to read what
> I am saying.   I am not talking about portability of complete scene files
> but portabillity of the objects defined within different files from different
> people.

????? What's the difference ? Take _any_ part of example I posted, and insert
it into _any_ scene which was created according units.inc rules and it still
works :-)

> I clearly agree with your simple example - my maths skills do extend that
> far, but you have clearly or deliberately missed the point - which is that I
> would like to cut a 1 object from a room scene you have created and "drop" it
> into mine along with several others from within other scene files -  without
> modification and without worrying about what your units of measure are
> compared to mine.

Please, show me example working example of two scenes made over two various
units.inc where units.inc preserve _relations_ between units and objects are
not movable. The only problem I can imagine is left and right coordinate
system but it can be solved too.

> Lastly ... you are being deliberately contentious and a complete prat and
> just looking to score some childish points as illustrated by your "This is
> exactly my opportunity." statement.

That's a discussion forum, and in this _discussion_ I tried to convince you
that incorporating "cm" in "hard" way is pointless when you compare benefits
with current state of parser and tastes of many users. I'm sorry it sounded
like monology from prat - I tried to be _helpful_ like in whole story of my
contributing into community. I'm sorry my "foolish" hurt your person. As long
as you are talking about optional feature you are free to make a patch with
it. This can be considered for inclusion in MegaPOV. See
http://megapov.inetart.net/manual/internals.html for guidlines.

ABX

Post a reply to this message