In article <3c964694@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

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

That is just plain wrong. There are very simple languages with many 
keywords, and extremely complex ones with very few (counting symbols as 
keywords...there are languages that rely on symbols alone).

Have you actually seriously considered my ideas? It doesn't look like it.


>   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?

It isn't anything like that, I don't see how you could possibly 
interpret it that way. Go back and read my original message again.


> > 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.

If you want to keep the current pattern of "point1, normal1, point2, 
normal2, point3, normal3", then yes. Quite simple really.
Or you could swap things around a bit and use "p1, p2, p3, n1, n2, n3", 
which would be even simpler to parse.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message