Ron Parker wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:00:12 +0200, Tomas Plachetka wrote:
> >This is something I didn't know about (that the
> >clock function is always monotone). I thought
> >of it as of a variable which is automatically
> >declared and has a special meaning...
> >Are you sure that the user cannot assign an
> >arbitrary value to clock in the .pov code?!
> 
> POV treats it as a scalar function with no arguments.  I get an
> error when I try to assign to it.

I take back some of my previous remarks. They were 
based on a wrong assumption.

> >As for submitting the patched sources:
> >If the above argumentation is reasonable enough for
> >including the proposed changes into the superpatch,
> >I'll do that (otherwise not).
> 
> I'll include just about anything in the superpatch, as long as it
> doesn't conflict with something else that's either already included
> or otherwise available, in which case I'll have to decide which one
> to include so as not to make a total mess.

I see.

> >Would patched POV-Ray 3.02 sources be OK for POV-Team?
> >If not, then which ones?
> 
> I don't speak for the POV-Team, so I can't say for sure, but I'd
> guess patched 3.1 sources would be far more useful.  There were
> some fairly large changes between the two (Believe me - I had to
> merge the 3.1 sources into the superpatch as "just another patch
> to 3.02."  It took several hours.)

I've never seen the 3.1 sources. "Fairly large changes" 
can slow me down but if I find the time, I'll patch the 
3.1 sources soon. Whom should I send them then?

Your last remark confused me. What do you mean by 
merging 3.1 sources into the superpatch? As far as I 
know, the superpatch is based on 3.1, not on 3.02. Or 
am I wrong? 
Then - if the superpatch is really based on 3.02 -
wouldn't it really be easier for POV-Team (or whoever)
to merge yet another 3.02 patch into the superpatch?

	y.

Post a reply to this message