clipka wrote:
> > Thorsten Froehlich schrieb:
>> >> Compatibility to MegaPOV should be of *no* concern when porting a 
>> >> patch or feature over to official POV-Ray. Consistency and avoiding 
>> >> new keywords when reasonable should be the primary conditions for 
>> >> syntax decisions.
>> >>
>> >>     Thorsten, POV-Team
> > 
> > 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.

Most of wich actually ended in POV-Ray due to previous smaller MegaPOV 
patches being applied without enough thought (in part my fault there, of 
course). Much better than a "no_something" would be a "something [on]" 
as default and users then using "something off".

> > - and with the syntax "radiosity off" already being in use for another 
> > very different feature.

But not a 3.6 feature, and in the beta it can be changed, and should be 
changed if it turns out to be unsuitable.

> > 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.

Well, I have to admit I prefer Warp's suggestion to keep this in a 
radiosity block per object similar to interior, media, photons, etc.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message