In article <3e640d5c@news.povray.org>,
 Xplo Eristotle <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> wrote:

> Fine. By the strictest technical definition, it was not a minimal scene.
> 
> So what? Why should I care? Why should *you* care? The code had one and 
> only one purpose: to be pasted into POV-Ray and rendered so that the 
> resulting image can be observed. It fulfills this purpose, therefore 
> there's nothing wrong with it.

But contains unnecessary text, which makes the message longer and some 
problems harder to find. It would have taken practically no effort to 
trim it to minimum. Asking for this in future messages is perfectly 
reasonable, providing an example is even better.


> Should I apologize for not realizing that people here would be so anal 
> as to complain about a fifth of the content of 35 lines of code?

No, you should apologize for the unreasonable insults you have piled on 
him in response to a helpful hint.


>  > you did not mention you were using an unofficial
> > version, which *does* matter.
> It would only matter if the bug only existed in the unofficial version. 

Did you test it to make sure?


> Had that been the case, the number of people saying "huh? I don't see 
> this" would have shown it to be so, and it would still be valuable 
> information, given MegaPOV's popularity and the fact that patches tend 
> to find their way into official code.

How many people would test it in the official version if it had this 
line:
#version unofficial MegaPov 1.0;
at the beginning?
I suspect this behavior exists in the official version as well, but that 
doesn't matter, it still needs to be verified. Your example did not 
require MegaPOV, and should not have used it for the test. This part not 
only was unnecessary, it was wrong.


> "Argh! And why all the unneeded whitespace bloating the code?"
> 
> Could you please point out which part was the suggestion? All I see is 
> pointless bitching and criticism.

The code he posted, proposing an alternative, with the point being to 
make it easier on others. Certainly nothing that deserved your response.


>  > and you
> > responded with "Bite me, Warp.", which was entirely unexpected and 
> > unjustified.
> 
> I beg to differ with your analysis, sir. It was his criticism that was 
> entirely unexpected and unjustified. My response was perfectly natural.

Ok...you have been abusive and insulting to Warp in this entire thread. 
His original message could have been better worded, but it didn't 
deserve anything like the response it got. The first reply could have 
been excused as a misunderstanding on a bad day, but this is way beyond 
that. Please end this now.


> (Then again, I can think of two other bugs in POV-Ray that have gone 
> unresolved for some time now, both of which cause crashes and one of 
> which is confirmed and documented. I guess I'd better learn C if I want 
> any hope of seeing them fixed.)

Being confirmed and documented does not mean the cause has been found 
and a fix written. In addition, there are many other things to be done, 
and remember that the POV Team and TAG are doing this in their spare 
time, for free. Don't expect your pet bugs to be at the top of the list.

-- 
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