In article <3e563e0a@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   Very logical naming? When you want to consult the documentation to
> see what was the syntax of that function, you immediately can deduce
> by logic that this function is of type "other"? (How do you deduce
> that? Perhaps "because it takes lots of mixed-type parameters"? Not
> very logical.)

I see a bunch of categories that it doesn't fit in, and one that it 
does. strlen() isn't a float function, it is a string function. 
Categorizing by purpose makes much more sense.


>   And what about defined(), dimensions(), dimensions_size(), inside(),
> val() and min_extent()? Are they of type "other" (because they use
> several types as parameters/return values) or perhaps something else?

If there were more array manipulation functions it would make sense to 
put dimensions() and dimension_size() in an array category. inside(), 
min_extent(), max_extent(), and trace() could fit in an objects 
category. val() is a string function.


>   When you know that functions are categorized by their return value,
> it's easy to find the function in the documentation. (eg. "min_extent()
> returns a vector, thus it's in 'vector functions'")

min_extent() deals with objects, so it's in the category of functions 
that deal with objects.

-- 
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