L'Harmonieux Forgeron wrote:
> 1. Learn to quote, put your answer after the text you are responding to.
> Thanks; it make it easier to build the dialogue.

That's what I usually do.

> 2. Nobody, but from your description, no_image and no_reflection would
have been
> possible weaker forms, hence removing them might have helped to simplify
the SDL.

They could be useful shortcuts.

> 2. This aspect was not in your initial query. You did not even mention
radiosity.

Which means you didn't pay attention to my first post (radiosity is
mentioned there).

>    It's look like you're asking something while wanting something else.
>    (asking for new feature, while wanting radiosity evolution/debugging)

That was just an example. I thought of the most general feature which might
include what I was looking for.

> 3. As I had done the debugging of no_reflection and no_image, it would not
cost you
> too much. You would probably increase each object with another unsigned
integer
> (short ?) and might have to surcharge the NO_IMAGE and NO_REFLECTION
flags.

Let me have my C exam and I will give it a try.

> BUT:
>  - I do not see the interest of it (as exposed in your initial request)

YHO

>  - I'm personaly against it

Morally?

>  - it is too late for 3.5, but too soon for doing your own patch

There's no hurry. And nobody talked about 3.5. This is
povray.unofficial.patches, isn't it?

>  - Last, you came to that solution because you had a problem with
radiosity...
>    Fixing the wheels won't put gazoline in the tank!

As I said, I looked for the most general solution.

--
Jonathan.

Post a reply to this message