 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] mac com> wrote:
> The
> merge shape could be replaced with an option for the union shape
So we reduce the number of reserved keywords by 0 and we force the parser
to make a much more complicated task (it starts by creating a union, but
in the middle of parsing it suddenly has to convert it to merge).
>, sor
> could be an option for lathes,
Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).
> The prism and polygon primitives could be made
> into one primitive, or prism, sor, and lathe could be combined into a
> single sweep primitive.
You said that this would simplify the syntax. I don't see how. If all of
them are made into one sweep primitive, we end up getting one reserved
keyword more than currently. I don't see how this makes anything simpler.
> Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary
> triangles.
And how do we differentiate between them?
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It is interesting that you seem to really take offense to my opinion,
and then resort to attempts at insult. This is an open forum discussion. I
am not suggesting that the authors remove anything, but I have learned
something useful about your state of mind.
Cheers!
Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote :
>
> do_what_i_mean...
I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended it
to do instead of what I told it to do...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c9605df$1@news.povray.org...
>
>
> I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended it
> to do instead of what I told it to do...
>
... and I would pay even more for a version of Word that did what I told it to
do, instead of what it thinks I intended it to do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Follow-ups to P.O.T.
"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3c960740$1@news.povray.org...
> "Bill DeWitt" <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
> news:3c9605df$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >
> > I would pay large money for a computer that would do what I intended
it
> > to do instead of what I told it to do...
> >
>
> ... and I would pay even more for a version of Word that did what I told
it to
> do, instead of what it thinks I intended it to do.
You only -think- you wanted it to do what you told it to do, you really
wanted it to do what it did. It is a fundamental law of nature that what
Bill Gates thinks is what you want. Any imaginations you have that might
dispute this law are simply wrong.
"MicroSoft: what do we want you to do today?"
PS: I was able to work every single word of the "Bunnies" song into a
conversation at work last night. I felt inordinately proud of myself even
though no one noticed...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hey, you forgot the smiley... Oh well, I doubt there's any chance anyone
will
> think you meant it....
I took his ideas seriously. Some people thinks in a way we don't understand
but it's not necessary to make fun of them and risk hurting them. Maybe he
is a boy. He said some things in a less polite way but I felt he tried to
make a point. A polite respond is always a good idea.
Regards,
Hugo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3 ideas that will change the povray world:
1.
I think we should port povray to Java instead. And then we should start a
render farm that runs on java-enabled phones. So many people with java
enabled phones, you wouldn't believe it!
2.
And additionally we should start thinking about porting povray to commodore
64. I bet many people use their commodore 64 on a daily basis. They'd be
very grateful if you'd do the job.
3.
Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR (Plug 'n Render)
--
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
apa### [at] yahoocom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3c96143c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 3.
> Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR (Plug 'n Render)
> --
AMD Athlon XP already does that! (XP= eXtraPov, oh yeah baby!)
Maan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c95fd1b@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>
wrote:
> So we reduce the number of reserved keywords by 0 and we force the parser
> to make a much more complicated task (it starts by creating a union, but
> in the middle of parsing it suddenly has to convert it to merge).
The goal is not to reduce the number of keywords, where did you get that
idea? I'm talking about simplifying the syntax.
And it wouldn't be nearly as complex as you imply...actually, it would
probably be simpler, they already share most of their code. You wouldn't
want to convert from one type of object to another, that *would* be a
stupid way to do it.
> Same problem. Number of reserved keywords are reduced by 0 and the parser
> has to change the lathe to a sor (which might be a bit complicated).
Not complicated at all, and I'm not trying to reduce the number of
keywords.
> You said that this would simplify the syntax. I don't see how. If all of
> them are made into one sweep primitive, we end up getting one reserved
> keyword more than currently. I don't see how this makes anything simpler.
Stop counting reserved keywords, it is useless.
One shape rather than three. Easier to maintain, easier to learn, easier
to extend with additional sweep types.
> > Smooth triangles could be made part of ordinary
> > triangles.
>
> And how do we differentiate between them?
Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c96143c$1@news.povray.org>,
"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> 1.
> I think we should port povray to Java instead. And then we should start a
> render farm that runs on java-enabled phones. So many people with java
> enabled phones, you wouldn't believe it!
There is already at least one Java raytracer, you know...
> 3.
> Force Intel to build a hardware povray version: PnR (Plug 'n Render)
Do you really want it from Intel? I think I'd like Motorola or AMD
better. Intel would probably end up rendering spheres as boxes or
something... ;-)
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
