In article <3a38ca62@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   Would this alternative syntax be better?
> 
> tesselate
> { MyObject
>   accuracy INTEGER
>   [smooth]
>   [inside_vector VECTOR]
> }

I think so...for one thing, there currently aren't any functions that 
return objects, so you should probably stick to the object syntax for 
creating objects. Also, this syntax could be applied to the idea I was 
talking about earlier while keeping a fairly consistant syntax:
mesh {
    tesselate {OBJECT, etc...}
    tesselate {OBJECT2, etc...}
}

BTW, do you think there is a need for more insideness-testing methods? 
Not all meshes will work perfectly with a single test, sending 3 rays at 
right angles(or more rays in various directions) would work better in 
some cases. However, it would be slower, and in some cases the 1 ray 
method would be perfectly adequate or even more useful than the "more 
reliable" method. For example, if you have a sheet-like mesh that you 
want everything "under" to be "inside", something like a height field.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message