Chris Cason wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>  Does this mean that 4.0 will *not* have any kind of revised SDL language?
> 
> 
> I have to be realistic here and take the approach that attempting to write a
> new SDL prior to releasing the tree for folks to work on would not be
> practical. On the other hand, the existing parser has to be replaced since it
> is fairly cumbersome and hard to maintain.

How hard would it be to separate the parser and the renderer as much as 
possible, and thereby allow for both a parser based on the current SDL, 
and another parser based on an entirely different SDL (as well as a 
rendering engine that is not primarily a ray-tracer)?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message