David Fontaine wrote:
> 
> Ken wrote:
> 
> > Warp wrote:
> > >
> > > Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> > > : Why go looking though a bunch of macro files
> > > : for a specific function when if can be hard wired into the program.
> > >
> > >   Let me think about some reasons why a macro would be better:
> >
> > And this is the exact response I expected from someone with advanced
> > mathematical and programming skills. You just don't get it.
> 
> I don't understand. If someone else has already programmed the pattern for
> you, what's the difference if it's a macro or hard-coded? From the user's
> perspective I would think it wouldn't matter, from the programmer's the
> macro solution is far better. It's not like you code fonts into a word
> processor.
> 
The main difference should be that there is (or ought to be) a help
page about the hard-coded pattern, whereas the documentation of 
macro are usually 'scarce'... (in fact, the documentation of any
include file is usually INSIDE the file itself... starting with
the povray standard include files for wood, gold, glass and so.)
Which means you have no chance to use an integrated search engine 
when you look for something : you have to know that it may exist
in an include file, open it and try to find what your looking for.

Post a reply to this message