Hi,

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> thank you, very much.  (for later tonight :-))
>

you are more than welcome (hope you don't do overtime <grin>)

>
> attached the "playing around" copy.  :-)  hth.
>

thank you so much for the copy - I will put it in my treasure box.

The "foreach.inc" is not a standard inc-file, I guess.
Can I find it somewhere in the forum or is it something out of your treasure
box?

Cheers, Droj

PS: I have to check what TOK posted (L-system of course). Seems like I caused a
palace revolution :-))

Post a reply to this message

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >
> > thank you, very much.  (for later tonight :-))
> >
>
> you are more than welcome (hope you don't do overtime <grin>)
>
> >
> > attached the "playing around" copy.  :-)  hth.
> >
>
> thank you so much for the copy - I will put it in my treasure box.
>
> The "foreach.inc" is not a standard inc-file, I guess.
> Can I find it somewhere in the forum or is it something out of your treasure
> box?
>
> Cheers, Droj
>
> PS: I have to check what TOK posted (L-system of course). Seems like I caused a
> palace revolution :-))

Hi jr,

got the foreach4.zip. I suppose it's the final version.

Have a look what TOK posted - it's mind-boggling!

Cheers, Droj

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> ...
> > > thank you, very much.  (for later tonight :-))
> > you are more than welcome (hope you don't do overtime <grin>)

no :-)  that's filed under "rest + recreation".


> > The "foreach.inc" is not a standard inc-file, I guess.
> got the foreach4.zip. I suppose it's the final version.

direct link to latest, this one is (I think) "compliant" wrt Object Collection
conventions, and thus safer; the wiki page has the most recent versions.
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-uadHHQ3K0sgdxyHmBCTznlPYNrnBgM9/view?usp=sharing>

> Have a look what TOK posted - it's mind-boggling!

I did, and got as far as line 49 in 'L-system.inc', then .. I had to look away
:-).  much (most?) of his stuff goes over my head.  (aside, without TOK's
insight(s), 'Foreach()' wouldn't have happened)

(liking the "level 9" tree, might make a fine brooch)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> no :-)  that's filed under "rest + recreation".
>
Good to know that R&R is still a part of life style

>
> direct link to latest, this one is (I think) "compliant" wrt Object Collection
> conventions, and thus safer; the wiki page has the most recent versions.
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-uadHHQ3K0sgdxyHmBCTznlPYNrnBgM9/view?usp=sharing>
>
Found and d/loaded it. Thanks
>
> I did, and got as far as line 49 in 'L-system.inc', then .. I had to look away
> :-).  much (most?) of his stuff goes over my head.  (aside, without TOK's
> insight(s), 'Foreach()' wouldn't have happened)
>
To be honest I looked through his 'L-system.inc' from top to bottom and yes, I
am with you - it made my brain 'loop' not in a simple #while loop.

TOK has, beside insight(s) a sort of black humor: 'SIMPLE L-system for...'.
Yeah, simple it is when you know. I just wonder how can TOK shake a thing like
that out of his sleeve.

Now I understand much better what you meant by 'standing on the shoulders of
giants'.

>
> (liking the "level 9" tree, might make a fine brooch)
>
I'll post the POV-file in a couple of minutes in TOK's 'language' as attachment
to his post. Yeah, it's a little challenge for a goldsmith.

Cheers, Droj

Post a reply to this message

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I still wonder why L-Systems or turtle graphics never really made it to be
> intergrated in Povray.
>

Hi folks,

due to the recent development (see TOK's post
<web.64b55265a6c2a55967f8fe5789db30a9@news.povray.org>) I think we can close the
subject here.

Thanks to all of you for your engagement especially

- to Bald Eagle for his enlightening and excessive (NO offense meant) comments

- to jr who always found the right words to cheer me up

and last not least

- to Ingo who came up lightning-fast with brilliant code and who showed me how
Povray Giants work.

Cheers, Droj

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> ...
> due to the recent development ... I think we can close the subject here.

or perhaps not :-).  the C source code mentioned by ingo comes with a nice
little PDF summarising the alphabet + actions available.  been thinking that if
we could agree (here) on a similar (or same) "standard", then all our "stuff" on
the subject would become interoperable.


> ...
> - to jr who always found the right words to cheer me up

good, good, invoice is on its way.. ;-)


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

>
> or perhaps not :-).  the C source code mentioned by ingo comes with a nice
> little PDF summarising the alphabet + actions available.  been thinking that if
> we could agree (here) on a similar (or same) "standard", then all our "stuff" on
> the subject would become interoperable.
>
Hi jr,

I definitely agree with you about your idea of standardisation.
Wouldn't be a big thing to do - yeah, sounds blue-eyed.

The only catch I see at the moment is:
In LSystems they use "\" and "/" for 'roll clockwise' and 'roll
counter-clockwise'
and one of these ASCII chars collides with Povray's internal settings.
But I guess we can find a workaround.

>
> > ...
> > - to jr who always found the right words to cheer me up
>
> good, good, invoice is on its way.. ;-)
>
Hey, you are going to ruin an old man ...:-)). Can I pay in installments??

Cheers, Droj

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> ...
> I definitely agree with you about your idea of standardisation.
> Wouldn't be a big thing to do - yeah, sounds blue-eyed.

it occurs that if there's movement (engagement,cooperation) and an eventual
outcome, we could add a 'Lindenmayer' page to the wiki.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2023-07-27 à 19:07, Droj a écrit :
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> 
>>
>> or perhaps not :-).  the C source code mentioned by ingo comes with a nice
>> little PDF summarising the alphabet + actions available.  been thinking that if
>> we could agree (here) on a similar (or same) "standard", then all our "stuff" on
>> the subject would become interoperable.
>>
> Hi jr,
> 
> I definitely agree with you about your idea of standardisation.
> Wouldn't be a big thing to do - yeah, sounds blue-eyed.
> 
> The only catch I see at the moment is:
> In LSystems they use "\" and "/" for 'roll clockwise' and 'roll
> counter-clockwise'
> and one of these ASCII chars collides with Povray's internal settings.
> But I guess we can find a workaround.
> 
>>
>>> ...
>>> - to jr who always found the right words to cheer me up
>>
>> good, good, invoice is on its way.. ;-)
>>
> Hey, you are going to ruin an old man ...:-)). Can I pay in installments??
> 
> Cheers, Droj
> 
> 
> 
> 
Yes, the «/» is used as an escape character.
Simple workaround that should work
Use this : «//»

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> hi,
>
> "Droj" <803### [at] drojde> wrote:
> > ...
> > I definitely agree with you about your idea of standardisation.
> > Wouldn't be a big thing to do - yeah, sounds blue-eyed.
>
> it occurs that if there's movement (engagement,cooperation) and an eventual
> outcome, we could add a 'Lindenmayer' page to the wiki.
>
>
> regards, jr.

Hi,

I guess there will be movement especially when TOK publishes his 3D version.

A 'Lindenmayer' page: that sounds intriguing.

Just let me know what I can do.

Cheers, Droj

Post a reply to this message