 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38ccd3af@news.povray.org>, Nieminen Juha
<war### [at] sarakerttunen cstutfi> wrote:
> It is perfectly possible to link C object files and C++ object files as
> long as they are defined in the right way.
I know, but it would be easier to develop the translator as a separate
program. That way I could have faster compile times, a specialized
interface for testing various portions, and I could directly see the
output translation. Both writing and testing would be faster.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello,
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Well, I personally don't like Java.
> A C++-binding would be more pleasant to me.
>
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
I agree, I' also would prefer a C++binding, because I hate Java (don't
ask why).
Yours Axel Baune
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> In article <38CBA3C0.3254B378@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
> wrote:
>
> > It would have to be in Qbasic or I wouldn't use it.
>
> Would you use it even if it *was* in Qbasic? :-)
>
> --
> Chris Huff
> e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
> Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
No I don't think so.
Axel Baune
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-4039AC.06380313032000@news.povray.org...
> I will post a "concept sketch" of the language design in a few
minutes.
> It is incomplete, but should give an idea of what I am thinking.
> I have never written a parser before, so that might be a little
> difficult(well, a simple keyword-value thing, but that doesn't really
> count). But I guess I have to learn sometime... :-)
> I do have a couple ideas about parsing the language, I think it would
be
> easiest to parse the scene into a data structure and then have the
data
> structure output the POV code for each scene element.
Just don't reinvent the wheel!
Parsing and compiling is a well researched subject in computer science.
I recommend that you take a look at lex/yacc for example
One of the standard books is: "The Theory and Practice of Compiler
Writing" by Jean-Paul Tremblay and Paul G. Sorenson (McGraw Hill). It
covers everything you need...
(you probably have it already :)
Johannes
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Johannes Hubert wrote:
> Chris Huff made the suggestion of creating some sort of POV-CSDL ("C
> like Scene Description Language") in the thread "Programming in
> Highshool" in off-topic. That would be a language based on C or C++ to
> be used to create POV-scenes. The scene would then be run through a sort
> of "compiler" to create a "real" POV-Script from it.
> The idea was, that only the "programmers" among us would want to write
> CSDL scripts (for example for complex includes/plug-ins) and that normal
> users could simply include the produced "normal" POV-Script into their
> scenes, not having to worry about the CSDL at all - they could simply
> ignore that part.
One thing I am slightly confused about is if you are using a complicated
scene description language to make a new scene and then convert it to
POV-Ray won't you still be limited to what POV-Ray can actually do
proceeduraly ?
If POV-Ray can already do it proceeduraly why not do it in native Pov
in the first place ?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38cd0388$1@news.povray.org>, "Johannes Hubert"
<jht### [at] mailacom> wrote:
> Just don't reinvent the wheel!
What if I want to learn how to make wheels? And what if I can't find a
wheel that fits?
> Parsing and compiling is a well researched subject in computer science.
> I recommend that you take a look at lex/yacc for example
While those might be good for people who want rapid development, I am
not sure they would apply in my case. I do think there is a set of
Bison/Flex(or is it Flexx?) tools for CodeWarrior, but I have never used
that kind of thing.
> One of the standard books is: "The Theory and Practice of Compiler
> Writing" by Jean-Paul Tremblay and Paul G. Sorenson (McGraw Hill). It
> covers everything you need...
> (you probably have it already :)
Actually, I don't have it. All the books I have are a couple standard
"learn C++" books:
Teach Yourself C++ in 21 Days(got this when I took C++ at school)
Programming with C++
Rescued by C++
C++ Primer Plus(this one is actually my favorite, I rarely use the
others)
And a couple C and Java books, and one Pascal book(also from a class I
took at school).
I don't have any books on algorithms or programming theory. I don't have
much money to buy them either... :-(
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38CD5D57.247F8422@pacbell.net>, lin### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> One thing I am slightly confused about is if you are using a complicated
> scene description language to make a new scene and then convert it to
> POV-Ray won't you still be limited to what POV-Ray can actually do
> proceeduraly ?
>
> If POV-Ray can already do it proceeduraly why not do it in native Pov
> in the first place ?
POV can do these things(or fake them), but to do them while restricted
to the POV syntax would take a long time and be nearly impossible to
read and understand. You could write a scene in C-SDL and then convert
to POV, but you probably wouldn't want to read the POV file, while the
C-SDL code would be much simpler and easier to read/write. For
programmers, at least. :-)
Another thing that could be done instead of or in combination with is
doing most of the parsing work in the converter and outputing a bunch of
POV objects. This would be especially useful for tree/particle system
generators. The POV file would parse much faster than the equivalent
generator written in POV-Script. Of course, this couldn't be done for
most includes...
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-DBD0D6.16302013032000@news.povray.org...
> In article <38cd0388$1@news.povray.org>, "Johannes Hubert"
> <jht### [at] mailacom> wrote:
>
> > Just don't reinvent the wheel!
>
> What if I want to learn how to make wheels? And what if I can't find a
> wheel that fits?
Find a wheel that fits? Great!
Learn how to make wheels? Good idea! But best done by learning from
examples of the pros. If you can't get a book, search on the net, there
should be loads of stuff about parser and compiler writing out there.
Johannes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:38CD5D57.247F8422@pacbell.net...
> One thing I am slightly confused about is if you are using a
complicated
> scene description language to make a new scene and then convert it to
> POV-Ray won't you still be limited to what POV-Ray can actually do
> proceeduraly ?
>
> If POV-Ray can already do it proceeduraly why not do it in native Pov
> in the first place ?
This is about the same as if you were asking:
"Why is the POV-Ray software developed in C, when C is only compiled to
machine code? Aren't you still limited to what your computer can
actually do with machine code? If the computer can already do it in
machine code why not do it in the native machine code in the first
place?"
OK, the difference between machine code and C is more obvious than the
difference between POV-Script and a CSDL, but the analogy still stands:
A CSDL gives a different logical view on the same system (in this case a
3D scene) which will have benefits in some situations, while in other
situations a different view (for example using POV-Script or a visual
modeller) is better.
Johannes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A CSDL gives a different logical view on the same system (in this case a
> 3D scene) which will have benefits in some situations,
Here is a conceptual breakthrough! "...a different
logical view on the same system..." You can have a
POV script view, a CSDL view, a VRML view, or an
XML view, or a visual modelling view.
Does everyone want the same view?
No.
Do we need to keep the POV script view?
Yes.
Should POV script be "native" view?
Probably not.
--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] nigelscom)
Research Student, Software Developer
Y2K is the new millenium for the mathematically challenged.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
