Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> The goal is not to reduce the number of keywords, where did you get that 
> idea?

  From this:

> I'm talking about simplifying the syntax.

  More keywords means more complex syntax. Less keywords means simpler syntax.

  Although the number of keywords does not change with the proposed change,
the number of keywords you _need to write_ in order to get a merge increases
by one. This means that when you want a merge, you need to write to keywords
instead of one.
  This only increases complexity.

  Why "union { make_it_merge_instead ... }" would be simpler than just
"merge { ... }" ?

>>   Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
>> has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).

> Not complicated at all, and I'm not trying to reduce the number of 
> keywords.

  Again, you need to write two keywords when one would suffice. Why writing
*both* keywords, ie "lathe" and "sor" would be simpler than writing just
one, "sor"?

> One shape rather than three. Easier to maintain, easier to learn, easier 
> to extend with additional sweep types.

  One shape with three different options. I don't see how that is easier
to learn or use.

  What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
"object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?

>> > Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary 
>> > triangles.
>> 
>>   And how do we differentiate between them?

> Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.

  So the parser needs to read three vectors, and if there are additional
vectors, it has to change the meaning of the three already read vectors.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message