I agree with this vehemently. Hollow does seem to cause all kinds
of misunderstanding, and isn't a logically accurate term. I would 
also add, though, that I never understood why the default was to
NOT accept media unless a keyword was added. 

Granted, there are ocassions when you want the bounding shape to...
shall we call it "forbid" a global media in a given region for 
special effect purposes, but when you attach a media to an object, 
why also require that you specify a separate keyword to make sure 
doing so has an effect? And need we mention the unexpected 
"camera in a non-hollow object" problems? 

With that in mind, I would propose that what is now known as 
"hollow" become the default condition of all objects, and that 
a replacement keyword "no_media" be added, being to media what
"no_shadow" is to shadows. "hollow" could then be phased out the
way refraction is now, generating a warning and having no effect
(which would result in no negative impact on old scenes, since
"hollowness" is then the default state anyway.)


Nieminen Juha wrote:
> 
>   I think it should be a good idea to remove the keyword "hollow" from
> the next version of povray (and replace it with a more descriptive keyword).
> It only causes lots of confusion among new users and it doesn't really
> describe its purpose.
>   This suggestion is not as bad is it may sound. This has already happened:
> the "refraction" keyword has become obsolete. Also all the old halo stuff
> has been removed. Things have been moved from "finish" to "interior".
> Radiosity will probably change in the near future.
>   Removing "hollow" may cause problems at the beginning, but in the long run
> it will do just good.
> 
>   I have to admit that I don't have any good idea for an alternative keyword.
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message