"Chris Huff" wrote:
> Interesting how one fairly simple looking feature (the
> function pattern) can replace so many others...

Thanks for the function.

> If one feature can replace several others, I say go for
> that one feature.

That's my general opinion too. Only to a certain degree though.

I don't think build-in solid patterns are completely redundant just because
the function pattern can create any solid pattern. I think simple patterns
that will most probably be used very often should be built in, while
complicated specialised patterns can be made with the function pattern.

The reason I think it would be reasonable to include the gradient2 pattern
(or whatever you would call it) in POV-Ray itself is that it's so simple and
useful. IMHO that pattern is much more useful than many of the patterns that
are currently included in the official distribution of POV-Ray, and I've
needed it many more times than most of the other patterns...

We were talking about the slope pattern in p.u.p. There happened to be
another situation where I thought about the limitations of the gradient
pattern. If the gradient2 pattern were made I'd say a combination of
gradient2 <VECTOR> and a simple slope <VECTOR> would be as powerful as the
longer slope version discussed there. The only reason I "vote" for the long
slope syntax is that a flexible gradient pattern like gradient2 doesn't
exist.

In your opinion what are the criteria when deciding if a new pattern is
worthy of addition?

Rune
--
\ Include files, tutorials, 3D images, raytracing jokes,
/ The POV Desktop Theme, and The POV-Ray Logo Contest can
\ all be found at http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated January 6)
/ Also visit http://www.povrayusers.org

Post a reply to this message