Anthony D. Baye <Sha### [at] spamnomorehotmailcom> wrote:
> I have to say that I am not enamored with this idea.  I see no need to
> completely trash an SDL which has been in use for twenty years, and upon which
> countless hours of work is based.  I have no desire to completely retool all my
> projects to use a new language.

  Having a new scripting language doesn't mean it's not possible to have
backwards support for the current one.

> I am not opposed to extending the SDL with a built-in scripting language like
> script-fu (just an example) it could be useful; but I see no need for a complete
> change of syntax.

  The current scripting language is too rigid and awkward, IMO. After all,
it is a hack over a hack over a hack, built up during the decades. It's also
very slow to interpret. Adding even more hacks on top of it isn't such a
great idea.

  Trying to embed a new scripting language inside the current SDL is only
going to severely limit what that new language can do, as well as make
things even more complicated than they are now (think about how much confusion
user-defined functions cause currently).

> That said, I have a few ideas for new features.

> A skeleton/wireframe object which would consist of a set of control_points
> defined as positions in space, perhaps using a keyword like relative_to which
> would reference a list of other control points.
> CSG objects could reference the skeleton/wireframe with a lock_to keyword which
> binds the origin of the object to a specific control point such that when the cp
> moves, the object moves with it.

> introducing an aspect keyword which would have its own list of parameters such
> that an object could not only be rotated using the rotate command, but could be
> aligned with a vector such that when the vector was changed, the object would
> shift, along with it while maintaining its alignment.

  A new scripting language would allow doing exactly those types of things
without modifying the core engine of POV-Ray nor adding new keywords and
new functionalities. (Basically you create new functionality by writing in
the new scripting language.)

> This is, however, not the central topic of my post.  I was thinking of a method
> by which the internal structures of the program could be extended with new
> features via dropping extensions in a specified directory.

  Sounds exactly like "include" files, written using the hypothetical new
scripting language.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message