Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In article <47109fba@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>>> You keep claiming that you can just somehow "untransform" 
>>> the matrix
>>   Do you understand the concept of resetting a transformation matrix?
>> Or is that concept way too difficult for you to comprehend?
>>
> Think I have already addressed most of this in the other post I made 
[snip]
> 
> Or do you want to beat the straw man some more?
> 
I am not familiar with that expression, but anyway here are my 2 cents.

What you deem necessary for animation is in my (and Warp's if I may 
speak for him) overkill. It may be handy for some situations but I think 
in the majority of cases I wouldn't use it. POV4, however, should make 
it possible and easy to use. So what this discussion should have been 
about is to what extend it has to be hardcoded in either the internal 
datastructures or in the syntax of the language. My (and presumably 
Warp's) opinion on this is that what you propose will be extremely easy 
to implement yourself within the new language for those cases where you 
need it. So it has no implication for the current POV4 discussion 
whatsoever. You are free to continue this discussion with warp of 
course, but it will be like talking to a wall, without being able to 
study the delicate texture of the stones.
The opinion that it is not needed is based on knowledge on how the 
current implementation works and some safe assumptions on what POV4 will 
allow at the minimum. However, you should watch the development closely 
that indeed these minimum requirements will be met. Or even better: 
create a list with those minimum requirements on the new wiki.

Post a reply to this message