Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> If it doesn't fit in with the more specific categories. The "other" 
> category would be quite small, and easy to check.

  So instead of using a well-defined, unambiguous and logical classification
system, we should use some obscure classification method based on someone's
feelings of what a function does (and if he doesn't feel that a function
does anything concrete, it's given a very abstract "other" classification)?

  I'm still not very comfortable.

  I support the idea that in the sections related to a particular thing
(such as strings or floats) there would be a "see also" subsection with
links to functions used for same purposes, but I don't support the idea
of changing the current classification system.

-- 
#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