In article <200### [at] dh286pemcamacuk> , Daniel Hulme 
<pho### [at] isticorg>  wrote:

> When POV 4 is released, I hope it is better commented. :~-(

In article <200### [at] dh286pemcamacuk> , Daniel Hulme
<pho### [at] isticorg>  wrote:
> The comments for Test_Shadow (line 666ish) indicate that Eye_Ray is an
> output from the function: this is clearly incorrect as Eye_Ray is an
> input.
> Would it be more helpful if I instead mailed these 'documentation bug'
> reports to someone or posted them in p.bug-reports?

If you just want to rant about the comments in the source code, please do so
at home, not here.  Finding and reporting bugs or asking specific questions
is fine, however, the rest is just annoying.

As far as you question is concerned, look into the 3.1 source code, it does
not use those caches and is probably easier to understand.  Either way, the
light code will be replaced sooner rather than later anyway, so looking at
the clearer 3.1 code won't hurt much.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message