I vote for 'not worth'.
I'm pretty much convinced that the proposed distribution are even, but I 
agree with your arguments. And I would also add that it is better to 
have a clearly even distribution in the include file rather than a 
distribution that is very clever but not so clear, even if it's faster.

JC


Rune wrote:

> 
>>I suggest to replace the original rand.inc macros by these macros.
> 
> 
> Even if the distribution of these functions are indeed even, it should
> still be considered that some scenes made using the current macros may
> be designed to depend on their exact output, not just the distribution.
> (Just like some scenes were made to depend on the old noise_generator
> before it was changed in POV-Ray 3.5.) This means that if new macros
> with different output are introduced, backward compatible alternative
> macros must be provided as well. This however, doesn't necessarily
> prevent some users from being confused when their scenes suddenly look
> different, if they're not aware of the new macros that have replaced the
> old ones.
> 
> Now the question is: Is the 9% speed increase worth the hassle with the
> backwards compatibility issue? I'm not for or against, I just want to
> make sure that the issue is being considered.
> 
> Rune
> --
> 3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
> rune|vision:  http://runevision.com **updated Sep 28**
> POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
> 
>

Post a reply to this message