David Fontaine wrote:
> 

> 
> > > 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.
> 
> You're missing the point, an 'official' macro could and would be documented
> inside the povray help file just like a built-in pattern. User-created stuff
> does sometimes lack good documentation, but that's not limited to macros,
> 'patches' can have it too.
> 

<nitpick on>
Would you extend this documentation requirement also to the 'official'
texture definition? I would be interested to have the documentation
for the wood/glass/stones includes files (of 3.1g!).
(While you are at it, I'm also interested in the objects from
shape*.inc ... and I guess that every include file may be of
interest to at least someone, so that would make a lot of new 
pages)

<nitpick off>

<reality check>
Assuming that 3.5 is ready now (I HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT THAT, it's
only an assumption for this rhetorical question), how much delay 
would be introduced by the complete documentation of the official
include files ? 
One year or more, I guess...

Post a reply to this message