 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-7-2009 1:26, David H. Burns wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>
>> That you see your smiley does not mean everybody else will.
>
> Thanks. Did you see it? I did when I read my own post. I don't think it
> shows up in the text in
> my "sent" file. These matters get complicated.
> :) (smiley ?)
>
I do. In your post, not when replying :) , neither yours nor mine.
The point I tried to make earlier is that it depends on the mail reader
of the person *reading*. You don't have an influence on it. You type a
colon followed by a bracket, that is what you sent and what is supported
by NNTP. After that somebody is trying to cleverly replace them by
rotated smileys, which is OK as long as they get it right :/
IIRC they have problems with exotic ones like \o/ perhaps because they
can conceivably be in a real post or in /ASCII art/.
In short, there is a big chance that what you will see is not what I
wrote. Perhaps it is what I intended.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-7-2009 11:13, David H. Burns wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> David H. Burns wrote:
>>> (Laugh) I love it! What can be off-topic to off-topic? What you mean, I
>>> think, is that
>>> this topic is forbidden! Or maybe simply unwanted.
>>>
>>
>> On-topic. Your conversation is clearly about Pov-RAY, so it would
>> naturally fit onto the on-topic groups better than to shit-chatting
>> off-topic group :-).
>>
>> -Aero
> I was told I was off topic in the programming group -- or maybe it's
> just what
> I say, or how I say it, not the subject that's off-topic. But my critics
> are right;
> I don't know enough detail to really discuss OOP.
That did not stop other people here to start a lot of threads. ;) So,
welcome. Take a seat, relax and try to find a role in this bunch of
looneys. AFAIK we don't have an on-topic poster here yet, so if that is
what you like...
> I just voice my objections which apparently aren't shared.
They are to a certain extendthey are. The main problem though, apart
from this being the wrong group is that you restarted a useless
discussion for the 42nd time.
>:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetel net> wrote:
> > Yes, I personally do advocate going for strong OOP-support with POV-Ray 4 SDL. I
> > do so as a POV-Ray user, and I do so as a contributing developer.
> >
> > Yes, I did present a serious proposal for a new, OOP-enabled SDL in the povray 4
> > newsgroup some months ago.
> >
> > Yes, being active in the development of POV-Ray 3.7 I *may* happen to personally
> > get my hands dirty on the code of POV-Ray 4's SDL engine.
>
> So it is so after all
> :(
So it is *what* after all? Me single-handedly going to take over the world or
what??
Mwahahaha - Yeeees - I've always wanted to do that...
Ah, BTW & FYI: Me being a contributing developer to POV-Ray doesn't mean that
I'm member of the official dev team. I do contribute code now and then, but as
for making decisions about which direction to go, the buck does *not* stop
here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Once you've embraced the OO paradigms, you'll no longer wonder whether it's a
> > step back or sideways - you'll know that it's a step forward.
>
> This is where I mutter something about functional programming being the
> future, and everybody agrees with me...
I have the uncanny feeling that in some years from now I might even agree with
you... >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The question is... are any POV-Ray "programs" large enough to benefit
> from the extra structuring? I believe the answer is yes, but it's
> somewhat debatable.
I'm quite sure they are - provided we count in a nice set of standard data
containers (variable-size arrays, stacks, queues, lookup lists aka associative
arrays, and maybe some more geometry-oriented like BSP trees, octrees or the
like), and don't want to code them all "hard" into the language or want to stay
flexible for users adding their own (graphs as you might need for physics
simulations, just to give one example of where one could go).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> [Now the old MS-DOS *.com files really *are* just bare machine code,
> always loaded at a specific machine address...]
Not quite true: They could be loaded at any segment address... OS calls would be
done via invoking INT 21h with particular register values though, if that's what
you mean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:05:45 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> but it
> apparently allows,
> maybe encourages, writing code so complex as to be almost
> undecipherable.
Google "IOCCC" for some wonderful examples of this. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:37:28 -0500, David H. Burns wrote:
> What can be off-topic to off-topic?
Why, anything that's on-topic, of course. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:00:37 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> shit-chatting
Wonderful faux pas. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 22-7-2009 1:26, David H. Burns wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>
>>> That you see your smiley does not mean everybody else will.
>>
>> Thanks. Did you see it? I did when I read my own post. I don't think
>> it shows up in the text in
>> my "sent" file. These matters get complicated.
>> :) (smiley ?)
>>
>
> I do. In your post, not when replying :) , neither yours nor mine.
> The point I tried to make earlier is that it depends on the mail reader
> of the person *reading*. You don't have an influence on it. You type a
> colon followed by a bracket, that is what you sent and what is supported
> by NNTP. After that somebody is trying to cleverly replace them by
> rotated smileys, which is OK as long as they get it right :/
> IIRC they have problems with exotic ones like \o/ perhaps because they
> can conceivably be in a real post or in /ASCII art/.
>
> In short, there is a big chance that what you will see is not what I
> wrote. Perhaps it is what I intended.
Thanks, again, Andrel. The smileys work, :/ and \o/ came through as the
Ascii characters.
I'm using Thunderbird.
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
