 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:10:41 +0000, Grey Knight <s16### [at] namtar qubacuk>
wrote:
> "\0" writes the null character.
#write(DF3,"\0" <----ERROR
Parse Error: Illegal escape sequence in string.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Oh dear. What exactly was \0 put in for if you can't write it to a file?
It's not like it makes any sense to put it in a text string...
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:10:41 +0000, Grey Knight <s16### [at] namtarqubacuk>
> wrote:
> > "\0" writes the null character.
>
> #write(DF3,"\0" <----ERROR
> Parse Error: Illegal escape sequence in string.
>
> ABX
--
signature{
"Grey Knight" contact{ email "gre### [at] yahoocom" }
site_of_week{ url "http://digilander.iol.it/jrgpov" }
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:03:09 +0000, Grey Knight <s16### [at] namtarqubacuk>
wrote:
> Oh dear. What exactly was \0 put in for if you can't write it to a file?
> It's not like it makes any sense to put it in a text string...
From documentation: "Depending on what platform you are using, they may not be
fully supported for console output. However they will appear in any text file
if you re-direct a stream to a file."
When I tried it with #warning it produced the same error message.
So, does it means bug ? Should I repost it into beta-test ?
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> From documentation: "Depending on what platform you are using, they may not be
> fully supported for console output. However they will appear in any text file
> if you re-direct a stream to a file."
>
> When I tried it with #warning it produced the same error message.
>
> So, does it means bug ? Should I repost it into beta-test ?
Well, whatever the documentation wants to say with this, a "\0" is converted
to a backslash in at least 3.1 and 3.5. It is obvious that "\0" cannot be
supported because C strings use it as terminator, so it should probably be
removed from the documentation altogether.
BTW, note that the quote you provided only talks about output streams, not the
file #write directive!
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:28:42 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde>
wrote:
> Well, whatever the documentation wants to say with this, a "\0" is converted
> to a backslash in at least 3.1 and 3.5. It is obvious that "\0" cannot be
> supported because C strings use it as terminator, so it should probably be
> removed from the documentation altogether.
Worse luck!
> BTW, note that the quote you provided only talks about output streams, not the
> file #write directive!
Yes, I noticed. But of course I tested it with #warning before quoting.
The solution I choosed is to limit range to 1-255. I hope it will be
sufficient.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3c7e10ff@news.povray.org...
> As you might know, you are not supposed to be able to write binary
files...
By the way, why there is such a limitation? It should be useful.
Gleb
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:57:06 -0000, "Gleb" <gk1### [at] sotonacuk> wrote:
> > As you might know, you are not supposed to be able to write binary files...
>
> By the way, why there is such a limitation? It should be useful.
You know, POV-Ray is a raytracer not... everything.
It is supposed to take script as input with SDL and produce image as output.
Writing binary files with SDL is like writing viruses with it - erhaps
possible but more efficient with external, specialized tool.
For example in my case I can export all values as text and produce proper df3
file with external tool written in any free compiler. The problem is my
laziness :-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gleb wrote:
>
> > As you might know, you are not supposed to be able to write binary
> files...
>
> By the way, why there is such a limitation? It should be useful.
>
Portability is the main concern. As soon as writing binaries includes
more than just writing single bytes the behaviour will be strongly
platform dependant.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 21 Feb. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"W?odzimierz ABX Skiba" <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote in message
news:ctds7u8u46hhf0crd5uaond5jsb9so71l9@4ax.com...
> You know, POV-Ray is a raytracer not... everything.
> It is supposed to take script as input with SDL and produce image as
output.
Well, I agree, maybe it was before, but now it is almost... everything.
Now it takes not only a script as input, but also some binary files
(images, dencity) and possibility to interact with them (trace).
Moreover, POV SDL has almost unlimited abilities for creation such a files
with unique effects.
> Writing binary files with SDL is like writing viruses with it - erhaps
> possible but more efficient with external, specialized tool.
The danger of viruses is not a point at all, you know, there are pure
text-looking ones.
From the other point, for example, possibility of reading
binary data into array and loading a "binary image" of
once parsed huge complex object would save a lot of time and/or space.
> For example in my case I can export all values as text and produce proper
df3
> file with external tool written in any free compiler. The problem is my
> laziness :-)
I do appreciate this, but again, to create some files one need POV or
similar
engine. By the way, a binary file produced with your recent beta-test code
looks very interesting when interpreting as an image.
I like POV as it is, but imho tendency of the development itself
will take it's own anyway.
Regards,
Gleb
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in message
news:3C7E4A40.365ADF05@gmx.de...
> Portability is the main concern. As soon as writing binaries includes
> more than just writing single bytes the behaviour will be strongly
> platform dependant.
Do you really mean that storage device drivers are more complex in access
than display ones?
Gleb
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
