 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The beauty of the standard macro collection is that you simply include the
> file and the functions act just like built in keywords. They are basically
> transparent to the user and offer the added benifit that if the function
> does not work as you want it to you modify it until it does. That is
> something you cannot do with built in features :)
What about looking at the pov sources? POV script is easier to use than
C, so having macros makes more sense.
Brendan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> The beauty of the standard macro collection is that you simply include the
> file and the functions act just like built in keywords. They are basically
> transparent to the user and offer the added benifit that if the function
> does not work as you want it to you modify it until it does. That is
> something you cannot do with built in features :)
Okay, you've convinced me. Now that the Beta is out, I can see for myself. I had
overlooked the benefits of tweaking the existing macros, although I do it all the
time, heh heh. I guess where I was going is that, for something as simple as
rotate_to, you would save a whole keystroke typing "rotate_to <1,2,3>" over
RotateTo(<1,2,3>)... I'll go back to my dark corner and be quiet now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dave Dunn wrote:
> Okay, you've convinced me. Now that the Beta is out, I can see for myself. I had
> overlooked the benefits of tweaking the existing macros, although I do it all the
> time, heh heh. I guess where I was going is that, for something as simple as
> rotate_to, you would save a whole keystroke typing "rotate_to <1,2,3>" over
> RotateTo(<1,2,3>)... I'll go back to my dark corner and be quiet now.
Don't get me wrong. It took me a while to buy into it as well. Once
I understood how flexible they were I shut up and excepted it too :)
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
