Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <470### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
> says...
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> In article <470### [at] hotmailcom>, a_l### [at] hotmailcom 
>>> says...
>>>> What I was saying is that we should distinguish between the 'first 
>>>> creation' and the 'final creation'. Calling both simply 'creation' will 
>>>>   lead to confusion (as shown is this thread. Much of what you and 
>>>> Patrck are writing does not make sense to me, because for me 'creation' 
>>>> is 'final creation').
>>>>
>>> How about "intermediary" creations then, just to confuse things more. 
>>> lol Technically, by your definition, the object is never "created" until 
>>> the frame in rendered, at least in any system like we are talking about, 
>>> where each "frame" is defined not by re-running the entire script, but 
>>> only via the command "in" the script.
>>>
>>> In other words, in the current model we do this:
>>>
>>> render("myfile")
>>>
>>> in a true animation system, we do this:
>>>
>>> 'Set up a bunch of objects.
>>> ...
>>> render
>>> 'Change the objects some.
>>> ...
>>> render
>>> 'Change them some more.
>>> ...
>>> render
>>>
>>> The "render" step is explicit in the script, since it only happens 
>>> "when" all the changes are made, not an external process that just runs 
>>> an SDL through it, and recalcs the data for everything as it does it, 
>>> based on the existing clock scheme, which is kind of limited. Mind you, 
>>> making that change, depending on how it was done, could break existing 
>>> SDL. Mind you, a command that "requests" the prior behavior could be 
>>> used to solve that. 
>> You could also assume that a render command is implicit at the end of 
>> parsing if none is given.
>>
> Yes, I had considered that, but its better to have a compatibility flag, 
> both so that someone doesn't try to run an old SDL, then wonder why it 
> didn't work right, and so that someone using a *new* SDL could be warned 
> that they forgot to actually render anything. Its kind of a toss up 
> though.
> 
There could be a problem with a compatibility flag if someone is 
including some old code. Then again the #version 3.6; compatibility flag 
never gave problems. Actually, as you might have noticed, I would prefer 
a 'camera(Scene)' kind of syntax in stead of a 'render' command for many 
reasons (some not even mentioned anywhere yet). Which points more to a 
compatibility flag than an implicit 'render' command.

Post a reply to this message