"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3c964780@news.povray.org...

<snip>

Hmm, well I don't agree with the idea of removing object identifiers, etc.,
but it's not entirely without precedence.

3.5 has been developed with the principle of leaving many essential jobs to
macros rather than building the support directly into the engine.

Post a reply to this message

Could someone PLEASE port povray to GW-BASIC?

If you want to download that funky dos program on-line:
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/gwbasic.zip

I'll remove the thing in about a week. Download it and port it and you'll
get famous.


--
Apache
http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
apa### [at] yahoocom

Post a reply to this message

In article <3c964780@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   It's just that I really don't understand what is the idea behind making
> the POV-Ray parser more limited and harder to use. I don't see any advantage
> in this.

I don't recall anyone seriously recommending this. Well, except for that 
one person who wanted to turn everything into XML...

-- 
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 <3c964694@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   More keywords means more complex syntax. Less keywords means simpler syntax.

That is just plain wrong. There are very simple languages with many 
keywords, and extremely complex ones with very few (counting symbols as 
keywords...there are languages that rely on symbols alone).

Have you actually seriously considered my ideas? It doesn't look like it.


>   What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
> "object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?

It isn't anything like that, I don't see how you could possibly 
interpret it that way. Go back and read my original message again.


> > Smooth triangles have normals, obviously.
> 
>   So the parser needs to read three vectors, and if there are additional
> vectors, it has to change the meaning of the three already read vectors.

If you want to keep the current pattern of "point1, normal1, point2, 
normal2, point3, normal3", then yes. Quite simple really.
Or you could swap things around a bit and use "p1, p2, p3, n1, n2, n3", 
which would be even simpler to parse.

-- 
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

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
>>   What you propose is basically the same as forcing the user to put
>> "object { }" around each primitive he writes. You don't do that, do you? Why?

> It isn't anything like that, I don't see how you could possibly 
> interpret it that way. Go back and read my original message again.

  You said that several "sweep" object should be grouped inside the same
object, and the type of the "sweep" should be told separately (if I
understood correctly).
  So you would say something like "sweep { sor ... }" or "sweep { prism ... }".
  This means that you will be grouping several primitives into one block,
just like what 'object' does with primitives. Compare my example to
"object { sor ... }" or "object { prism ... }". There isn't much difference.
  You don't use the 'object' keyword when you don't need to, do you? I'm sure
that you don't use the 'material' or 'texture' keywords unless you need to.
So why force the user to use an additional 'sweep' keyword when there's no
need for that?

> If you want to keep the current pattern of "point1, normal1, point2, 
> normal2, point3, normal3", then yes. Quite simple really.
> Or you could swap things around a bit and use "p1, p2, p3, n1, n2, n3", 
> which would be even simpler to parse.

  Perhaps.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> I don't recall anyone seriously recommending this. Well, except for that 
> one person who wanted to turn everything into XML...

  At least it would be more versatile with XML... ;)

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Ditto.
"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3c964b37$1@news.povray.org...
> > > Maybe he is a boy.
> >
> > This really doesn't look like it was written by some little kid. The
> > vocabulary and level of knowledge really doesn't match...how many
> > *adults* do you know who know about assembler, refraction,
> > dodecahedrons, buckyballs, and forward vs. backwards raytracing, or use
> > words like deprecated and intuitiveness?
>
> You have some good points, but on the other hand, there are "outsider"
> people. I remember my own childhood. I got hooked on programming when I
was
> 8 years old.. I got more isolated from other children than the majority..
I
> learned a lot about computers, but I was still a child.. So I knew a lot
of
> technical words, but my ideas were not always those of an adult.
>
> And it's possible my "isolation" has made me less skillled to understand
> jokes..  :o)
>
> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
news:3c960fd3@news.povray.org...
> > 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.

Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
*too* much trouble :-)

Corey

> Regards,
> Hugo
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"Apache" <apa### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:3c9678b0$1@news.povray.org...
> Could someone PLEASE port povray to GW-BASIC?
>
> If you want to download that funky dos program on-line:
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/gwbasic.zip

10 CLS
20 COOL!
30  I havn't seen that program is a long time.
40 That was the first program I learned to program in.
50 I'll definetly have to download it and play.
60
70 Thanks
80 Corey
90 END

> I'll remove the thing in about a week. Download it and port it and you'll
> get famous.
>
>
> --
> Apache
> http://geitenkaas.dns2go.com/experiments/
> apa### [at] yahoocom
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Heh. "*Too* much trouble"? As in, hmm, maybe like FLAME WAR kind of trouble?
Nah. @@:-)
"Corey Woodworth" <cdw### [at] mpinetnet> wrote in message
news:3c969572@news.povray.org...
>
> "Hugo" <hua### [at] post3teledk> wrote in message
> news:3c960fd3@news.povray.org...
> > > 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.
>
> Just to clear things up I did mean this as a joke. On some of the usenet
> groups I visit a joke post like this pops up every once in a while without
> smiles so I didn't know that that was the norm here. Hope I didn't cause
> *too* much trouble :-)
>
> Corey
>
> > Regards,
> > Hugo
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message