clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Though I generally consider this a reasonable position, in this 
> particular case there was a reason for the MegaPOV patch to use this 
> particular syntax and not a different one, touching one of the very 
> points mentioned: Consistency, in this case with the other 
> "no_something" keywords.

  Just because "no_something" is used for some features doesn't mean the
syntax is sound for all possible such features.

  Take, for instance, photon mapping. There's no "no_photons" keyword.
There is "photons { pass_through }" and "photons { collect off }", and
for good reasons.

  I see radiosity being more akin to photon mapping than to things like
no_image and no_reflection.

> - breaking consistency among the "no_something" family of keywords

  Photon mapping already "breaks consistency". Except that it doesn't.
Artificially forcing a feature to the same mold as some other feature
is not always a good idea. With photon mapping the different syntax is
justified, and IMO so it is with radiosity.

> - having to invent a new syntax from scratch

  I fail to see how that is a bad thing. If the new syntax is *better*
and easier to understand, it's definitely a *good* thing, not a bad one.

> - with not much of a precendence case to orient on

  Wrong. See photon mapping.

> Plus, as already mentioned, sacrificing the opportunity to use a syntax 
> already familiar to the users of a very famous POV-Ray patch - which of 
> course would not be sufficient alone, but I think it quite well rounds 
> off the whole thing.

  Just because an unofficial patch has made poor choices in syntax doesn't
mean those same poor choices must be replicated in the official version.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message