Le 13/07/2011 01:17, David Given nous fit lire :
> On 12/07/11 01:07, Christian Froeschlin wrote:
> [...]
>> I think you have to - even if it is generated you can
>> automate the process using a scripting language.
> 
> Well, I have managed to rearrange my source to allow this, but it was
> quite a faff to do so, and my source is now considerably messier than it
> was before (because I've had to split my object definition in two parts
> just so that I can insert one of two texture definitions between the two).
> 
> This strikes me as being a really odd restriction; is there a good
> reason for it?
> 
The way the code is handling it...old heritage of old conception.

Initially it was not even possible to clone an object, you had too
duplicate its full declaration and updates the end of it to move it
somewhere else.

There might be a need for a reset_texture / reset_material /
reset_finish / reset_normal / reset_pigment / reset_interior...

maybe not all of them actually make sense. And maybe the need is deeper:
removing layer k of a layered texture/pigment, or replacing it...
 (push/pop/swap operation with indexed layers... yummy!)

Post a reply to this message