William Tracy wrote:
> 
> Quick question for the group:
> 
> Does anyone see any value in being able to use OO syntax to
> transform an object *after* it's declaration,

There is some value.

The current SDL way:

#local A = sphere { 0, 1 }

// an instance of A
object { A
   translate y*1
   rotate z*10
   rotate x*20
   scale <23,44,33>
}

// another instance of A
object { A
   translate y*2
   rotate z*10
   rotate x*20
   scale <23,44,33>
}

Possible 4.0 way:

#local A = sphere {
   translate y*1
   rotate z*10
   rotate x*20
   scale <23,44,33>
}

// an instance of a
A.transform[0] = <0,1,0>
object { A }

// another instance of a
A.transform[0] = <0,2,0>
object { A }

Just a shortcut, though this might help with instancing of CSG objects 
(makes sense to me that it would. Ask a programmer.). The point isn't 
that it's terribly useful for changing the transformation of an object. 
The point is that it *is* terribly useful for playing around with huge 
lists of mesh vertices AND that the perhaps marginal usefulness of using 
it with spheres would cause others to use it in even simple scenes, 
making the SDL harder to learn.

To address something Patrick Elliot said: Don't understand media and you 
won't understand media scenes. Don't understand a major language concept 
and you won't understand many scenes at all.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message