> >       Show us a "simple little program" to parse POV code.
> Who said anything about parsing? 

	I keeps coming back to this issue which Nick Drew
	is aware of - is POV input data, or a program?
	Having programming is useful,  but also imposes
	limitations.

> > > Have you ever heard of the saying, "If it works, don't fix it!"?
> So...loops, macros, and conditionals are things of the past, obsolete,
> and not needed anymore?

	They are not needed for the kind of flexibility
	that is being proposed.  It comes down to a
	"is it a bug, or a feature?" argument.

> >       That scenario is not what is being suggested.
> Yes, it is. 

	No it isn't, it is ingenuous for you to suggest so.

>Or did I misinterpret Nick Drew's message?

	Perhaps.  I think Nick is simply pointing out
	that POV script can not be all things to all
	people.  Things like POV-SDML are a flawed 
	attempt at this kind of goal.

> How would this "alternative" be useful? If it can be used with
> POV-Script, you have to use a POV parser anyway. Otherwise, you can use
> either one or the other, but not both. And you would be making more work
> for the POV Team, who would have to support a separate language.

	Nobody here is making work for the POV team.
	Again, you're being intentionally misleading
	to suggest it.

> >       An ANSI C compiled library is about as portable as it
> >       gets.  A Java wrapper to this API is also pretty portable.
> 
> POV-Script is even more portable...if there is a version of POV on that
> platform, your script will run on it.

	POV-Script is portable in this sense, but not in the
	sense that you can parse your data back from it.
	It's a one way street, why not have the option of
	a two way street?
	
> Not everyone who wants to use POV will want to install and learn to use
> a C compiler to make their POV scenes. 

	Of course not, and that is not what is being suggested.

> How would XML make the output better?

	If it means I can do more in less time, the output
	will be better.

> >       I find it harder to learn POV script than to use languages
> >       that I'm already confortable with.
> 
> Your point...?

	The point is there is no real need to tie people to
	one language.

> You have the option of staring at a screenful of tags trying to decipher
> the underlying structure or using an external program, you mean?

	Exactly.  What's the problem?  Don't like options?

> Of course, you *could* do something like what I am going to attempt with
> POV-CSDL

	This POV-CSDL suffers limitations of it's own.  Why would 
	anyone bother learning YAPL (yet another programming language)
	if they had a choice to use whatever fits their environment.

> and make a separate translator program to go from POV-XML to
> POV-Script. You could make the program open source, and the POV-Team
> wouldn't have to support anything.

	Personally, I wouldn't be involved in anything that came
	under the current POV licensing terms.  This problem
	with support of POV is tied to the license.

> >       The POV community could use some diversification. :-)
> Not that kind. All that would do is add confusion.

	I think you underestimate the intelligence of people.


Cheers,

Nigel

--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] nigelscom)
Research Student, Software Developer
Y2K is the new millenium for the mathematically challenged.

Post a reply to this message