On 10-2-2018 5:52, Kenneth wrote:
> 3) but: "... to use #version 3.71 [which is in green in the docs, meaning the
> #version directive in a scene] in a a main scene file that does not start with a
> #version directive", is the troublesome part. It kind of sounds 'circular' or
> not quite logical. But I think there are two ways of reading it:
> 
>         A) An OLD scene file (one that didn't use a #version directive to begin
> with) would produce "an outright error" if #version 3.7.1 were added to it AND
> the scene were to be run in v3.7.1  (I'm actually still not sure if this
> intepretation is correct.)
>         B) Assuming that v3.7.1 (or later) *is* the currently running version,
> and the scene itself does have #version 3.7.1 in it, then the scene already HAS
> a #version directive-- definitely not a situation where the scene "does not
> start with a #version directive"(!)  In this intepretation of the sentence, it
> doesn't make much too much sense (and this is the way I generally read it,
> unfortunately... without some effort to second-guess its meaning).
> 
> 

I did a little test in version 3.7.1 as well as in UberPOV, with a scene 
from 2000. With or without #version 3.71; (or #version unofficial patch 
3.71;) as a first line, the scene renders with the following warning:

Parse warning: The scene finished parsing with a language version set to 
3.1 or earlier. Full backward compatibility with scenes requiring 
support for bugs in POV-Ray version 3.1 or earlier is not guaranteed. 
Please use POV-Ray 3.5 or earlier if your scene depends on rendering 
defects caused by these bugs.

Obviously, the resulting image has all kinds of defects but I wanted to 
know if the scene would render at all. No fatal error, only a parse warning.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message