Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
>>   What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
>> "object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?

> It isn't anything like that, I don't see how you could possibly 
> interpret it that way. Go back and read my original message again.

  You said that several "sweep" object should be grouped inside the same
object, and the type of the "sweep" should be told separately (if I
understood correctly).
  So you would say something like "sweep { sor ... }" or "sweep { prism ... }".
  This means that you will be grouping several primitives into one block,
just like what 'object' does with primitives. Compare my example to
"object { sor ... }" or "object { prism ... }". There isn't much difference.
  You don't use the 'object' keyword when you don't need to, do you? I'm sure
that you don't use the 'material' or 'texture' keywords unless you need to.
So why force the user to use an additional 'sweep' keyword when there's no
need for that?

> If you want to keep the current pattern of "point1, normal1, point2, 
> normal2, point3, normal3", then yes. Quite simple really.
> Or you could swap things around a bit and use "p1, p2, p3, n1, n2, n3", 
> which would be even simpler to parse.

  Perhaps.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message