In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
 "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <raf### [at] raf256com> wrote:

> Agree - in thoes case caching would NOT be supported, but as You pointed 
> out - this are _very_ rerelly cases.

I said cases where different functions had the same hash "signature" 
would be rare, this would be quite a bit more common.


> Mine's statment - 15 sec *but* on 1,7 GHz where render time for 640x480 is 
> 5 sec - 75% is pares-time.

Huh? As rendering speed increases, parse speed will also increase. And 
in that range it is irrelevant unless you are doing an animation, where 
you probably would want to use an image file. For less simplistic 
images, it will take a much smaller percentage.


> > Or use function images, no trouble at all, and minimal speed penalty.
> speed - no, se above

Right, see above. Your numbers still support me.


> I don't belive that trimming pattern formula (yes, and changing variables 
> into literals as described above) could be much harder for You ?

By "trimming pattern formula", I assume you mean the hash value 
"signature" assigned to the function? Yes, it would be extremely complex 
to do. You don't seem to have any idea how many things could change 
functions, how many things would have to be taken into account, and how 
messy that code would look. It would add an entirely new system to 
POV-Ray, with very little benefit.


> > that complex cache system would be nearly 
> > impossible to write portably and efficiently. 
> cache system is a problem for YOU ? 
> Ok, I'll write it (in few days, focal-blur path first :)

Haha, go ahead.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message