Hmmm...Your for loops looks like c-syntax to me.

Would you suggest that one allowed similar things 
to be allowed in a for-loop declaration in the 
POV-language that one allows in C?

E.g. initialize several variables, call other 
functions/macros within the declaration itself etc. ?

If not, then I my opinion is that one should 
choose another syntax for the for-loop that doesn't 
make the users believe that the same rules applies 
as in C.

And: Wouldn't it be better that the control 
variable(s) in a for-loop is local to the for-loop?

Tor Olav

mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html


Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> In article <38C816BE.35E35A1C@hotmail.com>, Tor Olav Kristensen
> <tor### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
> > But what if the loop control variable is a vector that is shared
> > between several nested loops? (See my example macro below.)
> >
> > Would this be possible with nested for-loops?
> 
> It would be possible, but not necessarily the best way to do it.
> Something like this:
> 
> #macro ObjectSplit(Thing, Point1, Point2, nnv)
> // Cuts an object into several "box"-parts
> // Result is returned in an array of such parts
> 
>   //#local nnv = <nx, ny, nz>;
>   #local ThingArray = array[nnv.x][nnv.y][nnv.z]
>   #local dPoint = (Point2 - Point1)/nnv;
> 
>   #for(Cntv = <0,0,0>; Cntv.z < nnv.z; Cntv.z += 1)
>     #for(Cntv.y = 0; Cntv.y < nnv.y; Cntv.y += 1)
>       #for(Cntv.x = 0; Cntv.x < nnv.x; Cntv.x += 1)
>         #local ThingArray[Cntv.x][Cntv.y][Cntv.z] =
>           intersection {
>             object { Thing }
>             box { Point1 + dPoint*Cntv, Point1 + dPoint*(Cntv+Unitv) }
>           }
>       #end // for
>     #end // for
>   #end // for
> 
>   ThingArray
> 
> #end // macro ObjectSplit
> 
> --
> Chris Huff
> e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message