On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 11:33:53 -0400, Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
wrote:
> > > I find keywords much easier to read and write than numbers
> > 
> > POV's SDL doesn't help me to make decision. Patterns has names and internal
> > functions hasn't.
>
> Huh? The internal functions have names, they are just defined through 
> the functions.inc file instead of being built-in. 

So what's the problem to define keywords for types this way ?

> Patterns and other things that use noise would be able to use any 
> function as the noise source.

Interesting idea. Are you reserving rights to make patch for it ? ;-)

> torus and torus2, torus1 and torus2, toroidal1 and 2, or something 
> similar...it is done in other places: the spiral patterns, atan and 
> atan2 functions, etc...
>
> If keywords make sense, I think they should be used instead of numbers.

If keyword make sense it can be always added as identifier during parsing.
Otherwise it seems overloading for parser. I can't say I fully understand how
parser works but I imagine with every new token it can slow down a little.
Further I imagine patches for 3.5 will introduce a lot of new tokens so
prasing can be overloaded. Tell me if it works differently.

On the other hand I wonder if some propability of occurences could be
introduced to parser. As source library from IRTC could be investigated for
probability of keywords. Most probable keywords could be compared with parsed
token first.

ABX

Post a reply to this message