"Christian Froeschlin" <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote in message 
news:4ddb8acc@news.povray.org...
>> I'm staring at the page to which you posted a link there and I fail to 
>> see ANY mention of any relationship between a pipe symbol and the order 
>> in which things need to be provided.
>
> What that documentation page fails to mention explicitely is that,
> in absence of special syntax, everything is to be taken literally
> and in the order specified.

"Is to be taken" - by whos opinion? Who says that this is so? The 
programmers certainly don't say so. If you disagree with this statement, 
show me where they do. Oh, you just said that the documentation "fails to 
mention" that. Bummer.

The documentation also fails to mention that chocolate is evil and should be 
outlawed. Does that mean you, I or anybody can just claim that it is somehow 
"meant" even though it "isn't mentioned explicitely"?

The various items in isosurface *can* be used in arbitrary order, as 
*demonstrated* in the tutorial; even though there is no "special syntax" 
anywhere. *Except* for those "object_modifiers" that are no more nor less 
marked with pipe-symbols or anything but somehow can only go at the very 
end. The only vertical pipe is between [max_trace ...] and 
[all_intersections] indicating an either/or choice as vertical pipes do in 
all EBNF I've ever seen.

So not only does the page "fail to mention expressly" that order is 
important, if it did mention such a thing it would be *false* because the 
behaviour of the program itself is such that order does not matter *except* 
in the case of object modifiers that have to be at the end. And where I'm 
coming from, where the documentation and the behaviour of the program 
differ, the program is right and the documentation is wrong. Fortunately it 
is NOT wrong here, because it does not actually say such a thing.

Meanwhile, this was Thorsten Froehlich's claim:
>Actually, you misread the grammar: As there is no "|" between the
>isosurface-specific modifiers and the "[OBJECT_MODIFIERS...]", the grammar
>clearly states that putting "all_intersections" after 
>"[OBJECT_MODIFIERS...]" is
>not possible.

Cool, if "the gramma clearly states" such a thing then it should be easy to 
show me *where* the grammar clearly states such. Because I somehow missed it 
and so I'm assuming it is in some area of the documentation that I didn't 
read and I assume there's more things in that section that I need to know.

His further claim was

> BTW, that you find at http://www.povray.org/documentation/view/3.6.1/214/

which unfortunately does NOT show any such information at all, so I'm going 
to assume that he *accidently* pointed me to the wrong section in the 
documentation.

Post a reply to this message