Am 05.04.2010 21:03, schrieb Le_Forgeron:

>> would have the benefit of not adding any new keywords ;-).
>
> Adding a keyword is not difficult, and would avoid confusion of the
> final users. (if you use the same keyword all over, we will end up with:
> "a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose..." which are nice but painful to
> understand)

The policy is to avoid introducing more keywords where sensible, to 
avoid unnecessarily breaking legacy scenes that happen to use the same 
word for a variable.

> repeat is currently used in warp, so it might be best to avoid it.

Repeat is currently used in warp for pretty much the same purpose as 
proposed (at least for the 1D repeat): Specifying a vector and distance 
for repetition (though it has some limitations with warp). So why call 
the same thing differently?

> And it should be a name, which "repeat" is not.

Is "translate" or "rotate" a name?

> I'm not sure the transformation from 3D filling to cubic would be
> obvious (and you might need holes on some places, and it might be better
> to code it once for each filling rather than applying specific
> transforms all the time)

I guess macros should be enough to fill that gap.

Post a reply to this message