In article <38CDD5B5.36C4EB94@ij.net>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet> 
wrote:

> Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> 	Pardon for deleting all of yours but this is my issue. 
> 
> 	If syntax is extended then those issues will have to be
> addressed. That is my point.

What issues? That is what I want you to clarify.

    The for loop is well defined, POV would use the existing definition, 
which is quite possible with the POV syntax.

    There is no debate that I have seen over integer versus float 
variables within a loop, and that is irrelevant anyway, since POV 
doesn't have separate types for integer and float.

    The ++ and -- operators would not fit in the current syntax of POV, 
so you can forget about them.


> One simple routine that can do everything is quite good enough.

So we should drop the #switch, #macro, and #while features and add #goto 
and #label? And get rid of #local while we are at it...

-- 
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/

Post a reply to this message