"ingo" <ing### [at] homenl> wrote in message
news:8EF2B8E07seed7@204.213.191.228...
> Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> >#declare A += B;
> >#declare A -= B;
>
> What does it mean?

the same as

#declare A = A + B;
#declare A = A - B;

Johannes.

Post a reply to this message

In article <38C7685C.5A4F3A68@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg 
wrote:
>Would you have difficulty re-learning POV-Ray if it's language format
>changed ?
>
>Would you resent it or maybe even quit using the program completely ?

If it's better and easier to use, I keep using it; if it's not, I don't. 
Personally, I like the template-scripting style of POV, much for the 
same reason I really like PHP for making web pages.

If I were to make one change to the language, it might be to make a form 
of macro that looks more like built-in functions. So instead of making a 
function like:

#macro FaceofGod(Religion,Sect,Vowels)

#end

and calling it like:

object { FaceofGod("Christianity","Mormon","auau")}

you could call it like:

FaceofGod {
   religion "Christianity"
   sect "Mormon"
   vowels "auau"
   pigment {
      color Green
   }
}

But this might be solved by object-oriented objects as well.

Jerry

Post a reply to this message

Johannes Hubert wrote:
> 
> "ingo" <ing### [at] homenl> wrote in message
> news:8EF2B8E07seed7@204.213.191.228...
> > Nieminen Juha wrote:
> >
> > >#declare A += B;
> > >#declare A -= B;
> >
> > What does it mean?
> 
> the same as
> 
> #declare A = A + B;
> #declare A = A - B;

So the way I see it by adding this you would save yourself the effort
of typing one character. The question the potential patch writer must
ask himself then is if it be worth the effort to patch the program to
accept this new style of arguement just to save the user from having
to type one more character into their scene file. Reduced to this it
would seem a petty feature.

-- 
Ken Tyler -  1300+ Povray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 11:10:38 -0800, Ken wrote:

>So the way I see it by adding this you would save yourself the effort
>of typing one character.

#declare MyArray[25*X+5*Y+Z][Colour.r] = MyArray[25*X+5*Y+Z][Colour.r] + 1;

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

On 9 Mar 2000 14:13:26 -0500, Ron Parker wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 11:10:38 -0800, Ken wrote:
>
>>So the way I see it by adding this you would save yourself the effort
>>of typing one character.
>
>#declare MyArray[25*X+5*Y+Z][Colour.r] = MyArray[25*X+5*Y+Z][Colour.r] + 1;

er, .red, that is.  Grr..


-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

This is what I'm looking for. I'm no programmer either, but if you ever publish
anyhting on it please post it here or let me know (yeah, that's asking a lot, I
realize) but this is exactly the kind of thing I would want POV-Ray to be able to
do.

Josh

Mikael Carneholm wrote:

> Ken,
>
> I feel the need to make a contribution to the debate here, as I have been
> involved in the discussion of changing the POV syntax and am about to submit a
> proposal to a new POV-Ray language (PRL?), as a part in the making of my
> Masters of Arts essay. My intention (and purpose with the research part) is to
> investigate if it is possible to keep backwards compatibility when re-defining
> a programming language (in this case: PRL or POV-Script as we know it). This
> will consequently be my mission - to develop a language that is powerful when
> you need it, yet easy to use if you're not a programming expert.
>
> The OO-approach comes somewhat naturally as I see it, as the world in POV-Ray
> consists of just that - objects. The spheres, cubes, cylinders, etc. that we
> describe are all representations of physical objects. We already have the
> object{[object identifier]}keyword, and the #declare MyThingy = sphere{..} is
> equivalent to a class description.
>
> I think I have mentioned this before, but I might as well say it again: The
> new POV-script I am thinking of is fully backwards compatible i.e. you should
> still be able to just describe a scene in no particular order, just as you
> always have. Some OO-features will hopefully be possible, but you will not
> have to write #declare MySphere1 = new sphere(<0,0,0>, new size(0.5), new
> texture(new pigment(color new vector(<1,1,1>))))); or something as
> (java-)horrible as that to create a white sphere. But, you should be able to
> access the attributes of the objects in the scene, for example: #declare
> camera.location = MySphere1.location - <0,0,5>;
>
> I'm very open for suggestions, as I'm merely a POV user and we (the POV users)
> should collaborate to keep POV as the best free raytracer available.
>
> - Mikael.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Mikael Carneholm
> Dep. of Computer Science and Business Administration

>
> Personal homepage:
> http://www.studenter.hb.se/~arch
> E-mail:
> sa9### [at] idautbhbse

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

> Would you have difficulty re-learning POV-Ray if it's language format
> changed ?
> 
> Would you resent it or maybe even quit using the program completely ?
> 
No, I wouldn't have difficulty with re-learning POV-Ray, except that I
can be hard, if you have finally find out how to create something and
you have to do that research again.
I would never resent POV-Ray completly, because I like that it's free
and that texture are created by the program and that it are no photo's.
The only thing  that I'm missing is advanced animation (like objects
bouncing automatically and complex movements).

Remco Poelstra

Post a reply to this message

Hi

But what if the loop control variable is a vector that is shared
between several nested loops? (See my example macro below.)

Would this be possible with nested for-loops?

Regards

Tor Olav

mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html


PoD wrote:

> Some aspects of the language which relate purely to programming could be
> changed or (probably better) extended without affecting those who don't
> use them.
>
> For a non-programmer or a programmer , macros, loops etc are a lot
> harder in POV than the equivalents in most programming languages.
>
> Surely replacing
>   #declare I=1; #while(I<=5) ... #declare I=I+1;#end
> with either
>   for I = 1 to 5 {...}
> ala Basic, or even for a non-programmer,
>   for( I=1; I <= 5; I=I+1){...}
> would make life easier for all.
>
> PoD.

#macro ObjectSplit(Thing, Point1, Point2, nnv)
// Cuts an object into several "box"-parts
// Result is returned in an array of such parts

  //#local nnv = <nx, ny, nz>;
  #local ThingArray = array[nnv.x][nnv.y][nnv.z]
  #local dPoint = (Point2 - Point1)/nnv;

  #local Cntv = Nullv;
  #while (Cntv.z < nnv.z)
    #local Cntv = Cntv*z;
    #while (Cntv.y < nnv.y)
      #local Cntv = Cntv*(y+z);
      #while (Cntv.x < nnv.x)
        #local ThingArray[Cntv.x][Cntv.y][Cntv.z] =
          intersection {
            object { Thing }
            box { Point1 + dPoint*Cntv, Point1 + dPoint*(Cntv+Unitv) }
          }
        #local Cntv = Cntv+x;
      #end // while
      #local Cntv = Cntv+y;
    #end // while
    #local Cntv = Cntv+z;
  #end // while

  ThingArray

#end // macro ObjectSplit

Post a reply to this message

Hi again

Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:

> Hi
>
> But what if the loop control variable is a vector that is shared
> between several nested loops? (See my example macro below.)

...

>  #local Cntv = Nullv;
> ...

I forgot something: Nullv = <0, 0, 0>
So the above statement resets all 3 components of the counter vector.

I think that it sometimes is nice with a vectors as a counter variables,
because it makes it possible to write compact code where a needed
vector changes as a result of loop counts.

Tor Olav

mailto:tor### [at] hotmailcom
http://www.crosswinds.net/~tok/tokrays.html

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, I like this idea a lot.  You wouldn't have to re-learn anything if you don't
want to, yet it would have the power of a full featured object oriented language.
I particularly like the ideas posted above of adding the C-style FOR loops and
such.  I would find these particularly helpful as I am just getting my feet wet
with C programming and I could work on my C coding with POV.  Anyway, just my two
cents.

Post a reply to this message