"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3d0d515d@news.povray.org...

> This is in fact the exact reason I did it that way. I don't want folks
bitching
> that we 'overwrite their file' because they set "don't ask again" some
years in
> the past then accidentally saved over a file that they wanted to keep.
>
> -- Chris
>
Doesn't it seem counter-intuitive to you to press "don't ask again" and be
asked again?
"I'm just going to ask you again anyway, just in case you didn't mean it
this time."

It would be nice to be able to turn this off. You could post a disclaimer of
responsibility: "you have de-activated a safety feature, and may
inadvertently overwrite one of your files. You can re-instate the safety
feature at any time in the options/whatever tab"

Post a reply to this message

"Jonathan Wooldridge" <jwo### [at] attbicom> wrote in message
news:3d0d7629$1@news.povray.org...
> Doesn't it seem counter-intuitive to you to press "don't ask again" and be
> asked again?

Perhaps. But my experience with supporting POV-Ray for so many years shows me
that no matter how we word the warning, someone somewhere won't pay attention
and will then complain to us.

I will, however, alter the wording of the dialog to say "don't ask again this
session", so it is clear that this is intentional.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3d0eee79@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jonathan Wooldridge" <jwo### [at] attbicom> wrote in message
news:3d0d7629$1@news.povray.org...
> > Doesn't it seem counter-intuitive to you to press "don't ask again" and
be
> > asked again?
>
> Perhaps. But my experience with supporting POV-Ray for so many years shows
me
> that no matter how we word the warning, someone somewhere won't pay
attention
> and will then complain to us.
>
> I will, however, alter the wording of the dialog to say "don't ask again
this
> session", so it is clear that this is intentional.
>
> -- Chris

It's too bad the forces at work are competetive between Coders and Users. By
which I mean that an improvement penalizes one of the two players. I am
saddened that there is no recourse to this.

Is it possible to improve the product? By which I mean that both the Coders
and the Users suffer less? This would be a genuine improvement.

Post a reply to this message

"Jonathan Wooldridge" <jwo### [at] attbicom> wrote in message
news:3d0fc392$1@news.povray.org...
> Is it possible to improve the product? By which I mean that both the Coders
> and the Users suffer less? This would be a genuine improvement.

The proper way to fix this is to not require that a file be saved at all
prior to a render starting (rather than have some auto-save feature that
can be turned on and forgotten about). This is in fact how v3.0 worked, which
used a different editor (which stored the edit data as a flat memory structure;
this was very inefficient but handy for doing a render from memory). It was
never necessary to save a file before rendering.

This is not easily possible with codemax, since it stores the file as a linked
list. This is not an impossible problem to get around and I will probably do it
one day. But not for 3.5 release.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message