 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 21.09.2016 um 23:08 schrieb clipka:
> Try `+a0.3` instead of `+a.3`.
>
> I'm not sure if POV-Ray /should/ support dropping the leading zero in
> command-line options (there's no clear statement about this in the
> docs), but apparently it currently doesn't.
>
> I'll have a look at POV-Ray's bowels to see if there are any hints about
> the intended behaviour in this case.
The source code didn't give me much of a hint -- but running POV-Ray
3.62 did: That version was fine with `+a.3`. So there's a bug that needs
fixing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 21.09.2016 um 23:08 schrieb clipka:
>
> > Try `+a0.3` instead of `+a.3`.
> >
> > I'm not sure if POV-Ray /should/ support dropping the leading zero in
> > command-line options (there's no clear statement about this in the
> > docs), but apparently it currently doesn't.
> >
> > I'll have a look at POV-Ray's bowels to see if there are any hints about
> > the intended behaviour in this case.
>
> The source code didn't give me much of a hint -- but running POV-Ray
> 3.62 did: That version was fine with `+a.3`. So there's a bug that needs
> fixing.
Wait: 3.6 and before had problems with that syntax because it can lead to cases
that cannot properly be decided when parsing the command line. You will have to
go back like 15 years to find the post about it ... and I am sorry, I do not
have that post at hand any more :-(
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.09.2016 um 06:01 schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 21.09.2016 um 23:08 schrieb clipka:
>>
>>> Try `+a0.3` instead of `+a.3`.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if POV-Ray /should/ support dropping the leading zero in
>>> command-line options (there's no clear statement about this in the
>>> docs), but apparently it currently doesn't.
>>>
>>> I'll have a look at POV-Ray's bowels to see if there are any hints about
>>> the intended behaviour in this case.
>>
>> The source code didn't give me much of a hint -- but running POV-Ray
>> 3.62 did: That version was fine with `+a.3`. So there's a bug that needs
>> fixing.
>
> Wait: 3.6 and before had problems with that syntax because it can lead to cases
> that cannot properly be decided when parsing the command line. You will have to
> go back like 15 years to find the post about it ... and I am sorry, I do not
> have that post at hand any more :-(
Let me guess: You don't remember yourself what the problem was about,
and nobody deemed it worth documenting somewhere within the code, or any
other place easily accessible, right?
Fine then. If anybody ever stumbes across the problem again, I'll worry
about it.
From the fact that various other switches have been perfectly fine with
this notation all the time (`+j`, `+ec`, `+er`, `kf`, `+ki`, `+k`, `+sc`
and `+sr`, to name only those already present in 3.62, and to not
mention the `+mv` switch that wouldn't make much sense), my current
presumption is that it was just a historic artifact, that may have led
to conflicts due to the way command line switches had been processed
internally, and that there are no fundamental ambiguities that cannot be
overcome by a smarter implementation.
As a side note, it turns out that POV-Ray 3.62 for Windows didn't
support `+a.3` either; it just simply did not report any error if it
came across an unrecognized command line option.
But since POV-Ray supports dropping leading zeros in the SDL, and also
in many switches, I think it doesn't make sense to /specifically/ deny
this functionality in the `+a` switch.
(It also doesn't make sense to deny it in the `+ef` and `+sf` switches,
but that needs to be addressed separately as the internal handling is a
bit more complicated in these special cases.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Let me guess: You don't remember yourself what the problem was about,
> and nobody deemed it worth documenting somewhere within the code, or any
> other place easily accessible, right?
I recall coming up with a quick fix for this, but that is about it, indeed :-(
Documentation is highly overrated ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 22.09.2016 um 20:22 schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Let me guess: You don't remember yourself what the problem was about,
>> and nobody deemed it worth documenting somewhere within the code, or any
>> other place easily accessible, right?
>
> I recall coming up with a quick fix for this, but that is about it, indeed :-(
>
> Documentation is highly overrated ;-)
Could it have been that some portion of the code erroneously identified
`+am` as `+a` with a (nonsensical) parameter value `m`, and that the
quick fix was to internally change `+a` (in its incarnation with
parameter) to `+a0`?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/22/2016 7:22 PM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Documentation is highly overrated;-)
The sign of a true programmer. :-P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/22/2016 2:22 PM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> Documentation is highly overrated ;-)
well isn't that just special! was i just thrown under the bus? gets up
and dusts off tire marks ... feeling a bit like rodney dangerfield
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.09.2016 um 12:25 schrieb Jim Holsenback:
> On 9/22/2016 2:22 PM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> Documentation is highly overrated ;-)
>
> well isn't that just special! was i just thrown under the bus? gets up
> and dusts off tire marks ... feeling a bit like rodney dangerfield
We're talking about code documentation here. Writing down why stuff was
implemented the way it is implemented, clarifying why the code actually
works even though it looks crooked - that sort of thing.
I don't think you want to hop onto /that/ bus ;)
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/50d362a49add41a6a5f5ead67fc38777/old-overloaded-public-transport-with-goods-on-the-roof-of-the-bus-f0n46n.jpg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/23/2016 11:10 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.09.2016 um 12:25 schrieb Jim Holsenback:
>> On 9/22/2016 2:22 PM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>>> Documentation is highly overrated ;-)
>>
>> well isn't that just special! was i just thrown under the bus? gets up
>> and dusts off tire marks ... feeling a bit like rodney dangerfield
>
> We're talking about code documentation here. Writing down why stuff was
> implemented the way it is implemented, clarifying why the code actually
> works even though it looks crooked - that sort of thing.
point taken ...
>
> I don't think you want to hop onto /that/ bus ;)
>
>
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/50d362a49add41a6a5f5ead67fc38777/old-overloaded-public-transport-with-goods-on-the-roof-of-the-bus-f0n46n.jpg
nice color ... i suppose you could see that one coming a mile or two away
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Holsenback <spa### [at] nothanksnet> wrote:
> On 9/22/2016 2:22 PM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> > Documentation is highly overrated ;-)
>
> well isn't that just special! was i just thrown under the bus? gets up
> and dusts off tire marks ... feeling a bit like rodney dangerfield
Well, it is just documenting the code ... documentation for the user is always
written afterwards ... or never :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
