Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:

> I find it extremely hard to locate the threads among all these messages
> that interest me.
> 
> Please change the subject field when the discussion starts to branch off
> to another subject.
> 
> (On other news groups I have seen use of the keyword WAS in the subject
> field but I am not sure of how this works.)

As a long time visitor to these groups I would have to say that for the
most part this is the longest on topic thread in the history of this
news server. Usualy when it goes off topic it goes WAY off topic. For
example some long threads start out talking about POV-Ray and talking
about gun control. However I feel just about every message posted to
this thread so far has in some way been related to the topic I started
with. So far I have been very happy with the progress of this thread
even though I do not necessarily agree with everyone else's views on
the subject. In direct response to your comments we have already seen
three new threads start as a result of it which are as you suggest sub
topic discussions.

-- 
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

Hi Ken

Ken wrote:
> 
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> 
> > I find it extremely hard to locate the threads among all these messages
> > that interest me.
> >
> > Please change the subject field when the discussion starts to branch off
> > to another subject.
> >
> > (On other news groups I have seen use of the keyword WAS in the subject
> > field but I am not sure of how this works.)
> 
> As a long time visitor to these groups I would have to say that for the
> most part this is the longest on topic thread in the history of this
> news server. Usualy when it goes off topic it goes WAY off topic. For
> example some long threads start out talking about POV-Ray and talking
> about gun control. However I feel just about every message posted to
> this thread so far has in some way been related to the topic I started
> with. 

OK, I had not read them all, so I was not sure. But some of those I 
read was rather "sub-topic" (as you call them).

> So far I have been very happy with the progress of this thread

I agree: Many interesting opinions!

> even though I do not necessarily agree with everyone else's views on
> the subject. 

I wasn't trying to say that I disagreed with anyone. I rather felt
helpless about not knowing the (sub-)subject" of all these postings.

One way for me to find out would be to read them all, but 
unfortunately I do not have enough time for that.

> In direct response to your comments we have already seen
> three new threads start as a result of it which are as you suggest sub
> topic discussions.

Wouldn't it bee an idea to add the sub-topic at the end of the 
original subject (like I did)?

Or would this cause problems with some news-readers?

Regards

Tor Olav

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 01:03:08 -0800 Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>Then again there is nothing stopping you now from commenting your own code
>to accomplish the same thing if clarity is what you seek. It would take
>a little time to get used to idea but once you started to practice it you
>would no longer have to worry about knowing which closing brace matched
>which function. Must the program force you to use good code writing
>practices ?

  A good practice that I follow with my own scenes when using nested
conditional statements. Probably of even more benefit to someone else
who may want to look at the scene code I've written (a hypothetical
example but entirely possible <s>).

-- 
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer

Post a reply to this message

>The for-loops I have used in the past have also allowed a
>STEP parameter that defined the amount of increment for each loop. One
>wouldn't have to be limited to incrementing or decrementing by one.

AFAIK, the C-like for-loop that would be added to POV would not have any
limitations in this respect. The way I see it, the syntax would be as
follows:

#for (Counter has an initial value established*, Condition to exit**,
Step***)
 Stuff to do...
#end

*example: I=0, I=100, etc.
**example: I<5, I>3, I=3, etc.
***example: I++, I--, I+3, etc.

Post a reply to this message

TonyB <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
: #for (Counter has an initial value established*, Condition to exit**,
: Step***)

  No, no.

#for(Identifier initialization; Condition to _continue_; Identifier modification)

: ***example: I++, I--, I+3, etc.

  ++ and -- are just too difficult to implement. I+=1 would be it.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

> >       I mean that once data is stored in POV format,
> >       it is trapped there.
> 
> I understand what you were trying to say now, but I still don't see why
> it is a problem. If the program already has the data, why does it need
> to read it back?

This solution:
	Implement a custom file format in ASCII, that only your util
	and your POV macros can understand.  What happens when I feel
	like shifting this same data to Autocad?  Or into my own
	CAD/CAM software?  Write more code to emit a different format?
	Is is not my idea of efficient software development.

XML solution:
	Use a format that is standard, flexible, extensible, and that
	other applications have a decent chance of importing.
	
> And besides, you can always use a plain comma delimited text file to
> store the data, and use macros or an include written in POV-Script to
> read it. 

	That sounds absolutely archaic, honestly.

> I really don't think many people "program" in ASCII, but in structural
> concepts and operations which they translate into a language format.

	At the end of the day, the docco and the source is all
	that other people have to refer to.  I would like to have
	the flexibility to add comments which are only visible to
	me, backups of old implementations of a routine, and even
	copies of email, or relevant URL's that serve as a reference.
	Plain old text editing won't cut it.  In some places, I'd
	like to be able to paste VRML examples of special cases,
	or sample output.  Try doing that in a text editor.

> but I don't think I would be able to
> make much sense from a non-code representation of that on the screen.

	So, UML was invented purely as an academic pastime?
	Diagramming packages like Rational Rose were invented
	as some kind of toy?  I've used a HTML documentation
	generator, that converts from C++ sources to nice hyper-linked
	reference documentation.  (Can't remember the name of it)
	It struck me that this was a far superior way to browse the
	source than the clunky stuff in Visual C++, or sifting through
	the files manually.  The only limitation - I can't edit in 
	this environment.  But I want to - desperately.

> Why would you need to? 

	Because I've got better things to do than manually search
	for information, figure out dependencies, track the use
	of variables, or accurately rename all references to a 
	particular function or variable.

> If it is for writing/modifying code, that belongs
> as an editor feature.

	No, it doesn't.  It is related to pre-processing, compiling and
	even linker issues.  Thinking of this only in terms of
	editing is half-baked.

> But you can try to explain the limitations to the people who don't see
> or feel them...(hint)

	I've explained plenty, to you at least.  I do not
	get any impression that you're going away to do
	any homework for yourself.  I am not going to 
	dedicate my life to making every implication
	totally obvious to you.

> >       They are referred to as separate language, but
> >       they are actually so similar that it may be better
> >       to refer to them as "dialects of procedural programming".
> 
> You mean like Chinese and Australian Aborigine are different 
> "dialects of human language"?

	Human languages are much richer than computer languages.
	I think it is a fair stretch to draw comparisons like this.
	The underlying theories in C and Pascal are roughly
	equivalent, whereas the protocols and nuances of meaning
	I would expect to be completely different between Chinese
	and Aborigine.

> My point was that text editors are practically universal, and everyone
> knows how to use them. XML editors are not as universal, and many people
> don't know anything about them.(like me)

	Then learn something. 

> If people are using POV, it is a very safe assumption that they have and
> know how to use a text editor(and a computer, monitor, keyboard, etc).
> The same does not apply for XML.

	As I have said more than once, I have no opposition to
	POV script as it stands.  However, it can not be
	"all things to all people".  This "lowest common 
	denominator" philosophy shouldn't be taken to
	extremes.  I expect that XML based editing will become
	quite common - and most of the time, people won't realise
	they're doing it.  Anytime you enter data on a webpage,
	there is a good chance that there is XML interfacing to
	the database.  

> I don't think XML is a "gimmick", I just don't think it is the right
> thing for POV-Ray. 

	You don't know enough to make this claim, or make this
	judgement.  
	
> If you can demonstrate how it would be the "right
> thing" 

	I've proposed a working group to develop the concept.
	"Conceptual Development" is a normal process which works
	best if it involves many people.  However, it is not
	my intention to crusade for XML.   (Although I suspect
	that nothing would ever be enough to satisfy you)
	POVray is not the only raytracer in town, after all.

> how it would be noticeably more flexible and useable than the 
> alternatives

	A XML based format for POV would be more flexible and
	useable simply because of XML.  It's not optimised for
	hand editing, but frankly that isn't important all
	of the time.

> And you still haven't explained how this gets the data into RAM in an
> easier way than making modifications to a well-written parser would.

	There is no need to me to explain the basic functioning 
	of an XML parser.  I highly recommend it to you as a homework
	problem - I think it would help you understand why programmers
	are no longer interested in "well-written parsers", they are
	interested in getting the parser off the shelf, and focusing
	on the real problems.

--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] nigelscom)
Research Student, Software Developer
Y2K is the new millenium for the mathematically challenged.

Post a reply to this message

>  No, no.
>
>#for(Identifier initialization; Condition to _continue_; Identifier
modification)


I haven't written C in a *long* time. It's a miracle I came that close.

>  ++ and -- are just too difficult to implement. I+=1 would be it.


I just heard. I posted before reading that. The latter sounds fine.

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Juha wrote:
> 
> TonyB <ben### [at] panamac-comnet> wrote:
> : #for (Counter has an initial value established*, Condition to exit**,
> : Step***)
> 
>   No, no.
> 
> #for(Identifier initialization; Condition to _continue_; Identifier modification)
> 
> : ***example: I++, I--, I+3, etc.
> 
>   ++ and -- are just too difficult to implement. I+=1 would be it.

Or make it like C really is:

#for (whatever initialization you want;
      condition to continue;
      whatever update you want)

#end
(It can all be on one line, I split it up here for line length)

Since it doesn't really grant any more functionality than the current
state of affairs, I'm of the belief that the POV-team has bigger fish
to fry.

-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

David Fontaine wrote:
> 
> Tor Olav Kristensen wrote:
> 
> > People can press whatever keys they like.
> >
> > So if you preferred not to hit that function key, then the computer
> > wouldn't modify your work...
> 
> Okay, but what about 1, 2 and 3a? :-p

I see that I have to agree with you on those :-q

...But I have a tiny but...

With a mouse one can do copy and paste of long expressions
quite fast. But for systems without a pointing device I see 
that the problem could cause a lot of keyboard hammering.

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

Post a reply to this message

Nigel Stewart wrote:
> 
> > : From the viewpoint of a computer scientist (I'm one) this is a not a
> > : syntactically correct defiend for-loop. The variable of a for-loop
> > : belongs to the for-command and should be never _changable_ by the user.
> 
>         I strongly disagree.  It is in fact syntactically correct,
>         and there is no theoretical reason that the loop variable
>         is more sacred than any other variable.

for j = 1 to 10 step 1

for i = 1 to 10 step 1

if (i = 4) and (j = 2) and keypressed(E or e) then i = 2 and j =
4 

next i

next j 

-- 
A free internet for a free people.

Post a reply to this message