In article <3a604eff@news.povray.org>, "Rune" <run### [at] inamecom> 
wrote:

> Anyway, if it's just because you think my suggested pattern is not useful
> enough, please tell me why the gradient pattern, with all its limitations,
> is more general-purpose useful and powerful than the "band" pattern I'm
> suggesting? And I could ask the same question for lots of the other
> patterns.

Well, first, I think the pattern waveform syntax could be extended to 
allow gradient to do both jobs, as you mentioned below. And anyway, 
"gradient" existed long before macros or function patterns...there 
weren't any better alternatives then. And for such a simple pattern, 
there aren't any real advantages to having it built-in, and several 
disadvantages.


> Anyway I really hope you'll make that extension of the wave-types you were
> talking about. It would mean that a single simple pattern could work as
> gradient, planar, marble, my suggested pattern, and many more.
> Another pattern could work as both onion and spherical.
> Wood and cylindrical like patterns could also be achieved from the same
> pattern. And so on...
> 
> This really would be more flexible.

Which is why I prefer it to adding yet another specialized pattern.

-- 
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