Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> I know damn well how they work.

  In that case you are doing a pretty good job at hiding it.

> And you don't solve the problem by 
> reverting things.

  By "reverting" I mean resetting the transformation matrix and applying
the transformations again (with possible changes). Exactly as the current
POV-Ray does, but without the need to reparse the object.
  I really can't see the problem you are having with this.

> How do you revert **only** to the Nth transform so 
> that you change only that one?

  By changing only the Nth transformation you apply to the object? What is
the problem you are seeing here?

> You are assuming, I think wrongly, that 
> no combination of transforms can produce a situation where the result 
> cannot be reset, then some arbitrary transform reapplied to make the one 
> change needed.

  You mean that it's possible to apply certain transformations to a
transformation matrix in a way that the transformation matrix cannot
be reset anymore? Now that would be a rather interesting thing to see.

> Worse, your assertion that all you need to do, if it is a 
> problem, is keep every transform in some sort of array, then reapply 
> them from that, is...

  I didn't say that. What I said is that if you *want* to keep the
transformations in an array, you *can*. However, you don't *have to*.
It makes no sense to force such an array to exist when there is no
need for one.

> What they frack do you think I have been saying? 

  What you have been saying is that every object should have an inner
array of transformations.
  This proposition makes no sense. It makes things needlessly complicated
and, worse, *hard-codes* one possible solution.

  The easiest solution is to *not* have any such array in the object,
but at each frame you simply apply a set of transformations to the object,
exactly as you do with the current POV-Ray, but without the need to
reparse the object. I gave a small example in a previous post.

  What you *can* do if you *want*, for whatever reason, is to have the
transformations in an array and then apply them in a loop to the object.

> Your, "just make some 
> separate transform array", just obfuscates what is going on, by 
> separating the transforms from the object they effect, when they should, 
> logically be considered "part" of the final object

  No, it's *your* solution which is obfuscating things, by forcing the
user to use some kind of array when there isn't a need for one.

  The current POV-Ray SDL doesn't need any transformation arrays, nor does
the new SDL.

> I think you are badly missing my point, both in terms of what I mean and 
> how any such system would end up looking from a user standpoint.

  I think that it's you who is confused about how transformations can and
should be applied to objects. Your array idea is just bad.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message