Hola,

I have a question about a new pattern and warp type that was added in 
beta 24:

http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:ToDo\CLReview#Beta_24

specifically the cubic pattern and cubic warp. I was able to figure out 
where to add the pattern warp entry:

http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.3#Cubic

but whats up with the cubic warp? Should it go here:

http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.6#Mapping_using_warps

and or here:

http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.6#The_map_type_Option

Is it one of the listed types that are still under developement (3 and 4)?

I'd image there should also be a mention in the syntax diagram here:

http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.6#Warps

Finally in the keywords and identifiers list here:
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_2#Identifiers_and_Keywords

I already see an entry for the "cubic" keyword that links someplace 
else! Conflict or does parse phase associate those properly?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> but whats up with the cubic warp? Should it go here:

>
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.6#Mapping_using_warps

  I'd say it's rather obvious.

> and or here:

>
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.6#The_map_type_Option

  Why would it go there? The cubic warp has nothing to do with image mapping
types.

> I already see an entry for the "cubic" keyword that links someplace 
> else! Conflict or does parse phase associate those properly?

  The same keyword can be used for different purposes in different contexts.

  If you want to make a list of keywords such that the keyword is a link
to the pertinent documentation, you should make several entries in such a
list, like:

- cubic (primitive)
- cubic (list pattern)
- cubic (warp)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
>> but whats up with the cubic warp? Should it go here:
> 
>>
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.6#Mapping_using_warps
> 
>   I'd say it's rather obvious.

well if it was THAT obvious I wouldn't have asked ... I'm not prone to 
waste time (mine or others) when asking seems like to correct thing to do.

> 
>> and or here:
> 
>>
http://wiki.povray.org/content/Documentation:Reference_Section_5.6#The_map_type_Option
> 
>   Why would it go there? The cubic warp has nothing to do with image mapping
> types.

the descriptive passage in the change log seemed awfully vague to me! 
hey we can't all be as sharp as you ;-)

>> I already see an entry for the "cubic" keyword that links someplace 
>> else! Conflict or does parse phase associate those properly?
> 
>   The same keyword can be used for different purposes in different contexts.

yes I thought that might be the case ... thanks for the clarification.

>   If you want to make a list of keywords such that the keyword is a link
> to the pertinent documentation, you should make several entries in such a
> list, like:
> 
> - cubic (primitive)
> - cubic (list pattern)
> - cubic (warp)

a worthy idea ... danke

(thinking out loud) ... am i the only one who thinks that you can be 
rather snide with some of your replies? have a cookie ... smile more 
often. trust me it'll do wonders for your disposition.

Cheers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> (thinking out loud) ... am i the only one who thinks that you can be 
> rather snide with some of your replies? have a cookie ... smile more 
> often. trust me it'll do wonders for your disposition.

  You call it snide, I call it pragmatic.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
>> (thinking out loud) ... am i the only one who thinks that you can be 
>> rather snide with some of your replies? have a cookie ... smile more 
>> often. trust me it'll do wonders for your disposition.
> 
>   You call it snide, I call it pragmatic.
> 
I don't find anything pragmatic about the way you conduct yourself ...
Why don't we just do BOTH ourselves a favor and resign to stay out of 
each others way. Deal?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
> >> (thinking out loud) ... am i the only one who thinks that you can be 
> >> rather snide with some of your replies? have a cookie ... smile more 
> >> often. trust me it'll do wonders for your disposition.
> > 
> >   You call it snide, I call it pragmatic.
> > 
> I don't find anything pragmatic about the way you conduct yourself ...
> Why don't we just do BOTH ourselves a favor and resign to stay out of 
> each others way. Deal?

  Apparently my attempt at humor was completely lost.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 15/04/2010 9:47 PM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg>  wrote:
>>>> (thinking out loud) ... am i the only one who thinks that you can be
>>>> rather snide with some of your replies? have a cookie ... smile more
>>>> often. trust me it'll do wonders for your disposition.
>>>
>>>    You call it snide, I call it pragmatic.
>>>
>> I don't find anything pragmatic about the way you conduct yourself ...
>> Why don't we just do BOTH ourselves a favor and resign to stay out of
>> each others way. Deal?
>
>    Apparently my attempt at humor was completely lost.
>

Then why don't you put some smilies in your posts? We can't read your mind.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 15/04/2010 9:47 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg>  wrote:
> >> Warp wrote:
> >>> Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg>  wrote:
> >>>> (thinking out loud) ... am i the only one who thinks that you can be
> >>>> rather snide with some of your replies? have a cookie ... smile more
> >>>> often. trust me it'll do wonders for your disposition.
> >>>
> >>>    You call it snide, I call it pragmatic.
> >>>
> >> I don't find anything pragmatic about the way you conduct yourself ...
> >> Why don't we just do BOTH ourselves a favor and resign to stay out of
> >> each others way. Deal?
> >
> >    Apparently my attempt at humor was completely lost.
> >

> Then why don't you put some smilies in your posts? We can't read your mind.

  I feel like smilies are like explaining the joke.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Apparently my attempt at humor was completely lost.
>>
>
> Then why don't you put some smilies in your posts? We can't read your
> mind.
>

   Warp's humor sense would require a too complex smiley, I guess... ;)

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

On 16/04/2010 11:30 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 15/04/2010 9:47 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg>   wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>> Jim Holsenback<jho### [at] povrayorg>   wrote:
>>>>>> (thinking out loud) ... am i the only one who thinks that you can be
>>>>>> rather snide with some of your replies? have a cookie ... smile more
>>>>>> often. trust me it'll do wonders for your disposition.
>>>>>
>>>>>     You call it snide, I call it pragmatic.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't find anything pragmatic about the way you conduct yourself ...
>>>> Why don't we just do BOTH ourselves a favor and resign to stay out of
>>>> each others way. Deal?
>>>
>>>     Apparently my attempt at humor was completely lost.
>>>
>
>> Then why don't you put some smilies in your posts? We can't read your mind.
>
>    I feel like smilies are like explaining the joke.
>

No, they are letting people know that there is a joke. With the lack of 
inflection or body language in writing, it comes across as being rude 
and sometimes hurtful. Add that to the differences in humour across 
languages and even between different types of English it is highly 
recommended that people use smilies. :-D

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message