Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> Yes, but one thing you get is that any standard XML editor (and more are
> arriving each day) can do all that editing and homework for you. You'd
then end
> up typing less, and would be able to view your scene as a tree, move
things
> around, colapse and expand, etc.
>
> And the editor imported what you typed and then did your preferred tab
> formatting on it, of course. :-)

This is way better. I didn't get this editor idea. The tree view is really
seducing. But I still am more confortable with keeping povscript the way it
is and to use(don't look at me, I am no programer) a pov2xml translator or -
even better IMHO - to have a povscript treeview editor (I said I am no
programer - heck, I can't even _spell_ "programmer" correctly).


Povingly


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

Mark Wagner wrote:
> DKBTrace had a similar syntax.
>
> OBJECT
>  SPHERE
>   <0 2 0> 1
>  END_SPHERE
>  TEXTURE
>   COLOUR RED 1 GREEN 1 BLUE 1
>   PHONG 1
>   DIFFUSE 0.1
>   REFLECTION 0.9
>   METALLIC
>  END_TEXTURE
> END_OBJECT


So, I was not so mistaken (it is the keyword / end_keyword syntax that gave
me that impression).

Thank you Mark.


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:23:34 -0500, Mark Wagner wrote:
>
>Ken wrote in message <38464170.FA093F22@pacbell.net>...
>>Every once in a while an over zealous person with a programming
>>background pops up and suggests that the language should become more C
>>oriented or should include object oriented programming or a host of other
>>scenarios.
>
>POV script should be changed to a language based on LISP :-)

I'm with him.  That'd make the parser *really* easy to write. :)

-- 
These are my opinions.  I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
The superpatch: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/superpatch/
My other stuff: http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html

Post a reply to this message

> I think this little exercise is getting out of hand.

	I must admit, I was surprised to see the reaction
	to our quiet little conversation...  You'd think
	that the current scripting is the be all and
	end-all of scripting.  I can understand people
	getting worried about "elitist programmer types"
	wanting to impose new paradigms - but all we're 
	doing is talking about it.  The POV team are
	conservative about making changes - this ensures
	that users will not get bulldozed....

	A basic criteria for me would be that the parser
	is modularised, so that the "old" parser and the
	"new" parser would still both work.  I personally
	don't want to tell people to do things "my" way,
	I just think that POV script is TOO MUCH like C
	programming, and a bit too unstructured.  That is
	my opinion as an experienced C and C++ programmer.
	I'd like POV data to be a bit more "open" in terms
	of exchange with other applications.  (Even
	between different versions of POV... :-)

	So, although I'm kindof impressed with the
	reaction, please lets keep some perspective.

	We're not talking about turning POV into a modeller.
	We're saying that the scene files can be strutured
	so that GUI based editing is more feasible. 

	Now, Jon, lets rename our thread to 
	"Re: Porting POV to Java" so that we can get some 
	peace.. :-)


--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] nigelscom)
Research Student, Software Developer, Tokyo Dweller
"The Australian Government wants to read your email."

Post a reply to this message