 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Is it possible to get rid of hash marks (#) in front of some SDL statements?
I'm asking about POV4, of course.
Why are they there at all? It took a ve-e-ery long time for me to get
accustomed to several hash marks on a single line in POV SDL files... The
thing is that, in most languages, it is impossible (well, at least not
feasible) -- either # starts a comment, or a preprocessor directive. In
early versions of C preprocessors you could not even have # anywhere but at
position 1 of a line...
So my point is that, with those hash marks, prefixed SDL statements look
like foreign bodies, really. Now that POV-Ray's SDL became more than even a
script (with recent additions, it should be though of as a language... great
language), those hash marks really get in the way and hinder overall
perception.
Thanks,
Vadim.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:11:12 +0300, "Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] ru com> wrote:
> Is it possible to get rid of hash marks (#) in front of some SDL statements?
> I'm asking about POV4, of course.
Personally I like them. They simple split SDL into SD and L.
ABX
--
disc{z,-z 5#macro O()asc(substr("-+((1*(,1,/.-,*/(,&.323/'1"e,1))*.1-4#declare
e=e-1;#end#local e=26;pigment{#local g=function(_){ceil(_)-_}function#local//X
k=function{pattern{object{sphere_sweep{linear_spline 13#while(e>0)<O(),O()//AB
>.01#end}}}}{k(g(atan2(x,y)),g(ln((y+x)^2+1e-5)),0)}}finish{ambient 1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In fact, that is exactly why I would like to get rid of them. There is no
such thing
as SD vs. L subdivision -- so no-one should ever think that it exists.
news:t1es8uc7orrhprttmv10igmkuvlvh5r1ou@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:11:12 +0300, "Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom>
wrote:
> > Is it possible to get rid of hash marks (#) in front of some SDL
statements?
> > I'm asking about POV4, of course.
>
> Personally I like them. They simple split SDL into SD and L.
>
> ABX
> --
> disc{z,-z 5#macro
O()asc(substr("-+((1*(,1,/.-,*/(,&.323/'1"e,1))*.1-4#declare
> e=e-1;#end#local e=26;pigment{#local
g=function(_){ceil(_)-_}function#local//X
> k=function{pattern{object{sphere_sweep{linear_spline
13#while(e>0)<O(),O()//AB
> >.01#end}}}}{k(g(atan2(x,y)),g(ln((y+x)^2+1e-5)),0)}}finish{ambient
1}}//POV35
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Personally I like them. They simple split SDL into SD and L.
To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, just compare POV-Ray and
PolyRay scene description and include files... While POV-Ray is by far more
superior as a tool, it lacks PolyRay's elegance as a language (i.e.
regardless of what that language is capable of).
We're all artists inside... so does the above mentioned comparison strike a
chord, doesn't it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:30:24 +0300, "Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom> wrote:
> In fact, that is exactly why I would like to get rid of them. There is no
> such thing as SD vs. L subdivision.
For me there is :-)
#declare, #while, #end etc are important at parse time, I mean they influence
haw the source appear for parser
sphere, box, pigment, finish are important at tracing time, I mean they
influence how scene appear for raytracer
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c8e36b2@news.povray.org>,
"Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom> wrote:
> Is it possible to get rid of hash marks (#) in front of some SDL statements?
> I'm asking about POV4, of course.
They were probably added to help the parser differentiate between
objects and statements. The POV-Team has said they are considering
reworking the POV language, this would probably be part of it.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:39:44 +0300, "Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom> wrote:
> > Personally I like them. They simple split SDL into SD and L.
>
> To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, just compare POV-Ray and
> PolyRay scene description and include files...
I have never worked with PolyRay but I just downloaded polydoc.lzh. All files
inside are 5 years old. It suggests it died and further it suggests there were
reason for it. Perhaps one of it was limitations in SDL ?
> While POV-Ray is by far more
> superior as a tool, it lacks PolyRay's elegance as a language (i.e.
> regardless of what that language is capable of).
???
I consider POV-SDL very elegant :-)
As I said I don't know POlyRay very well - pont me what exactly is more
elegant there ?
> We're all artists inside...
Pov-community is artistical and technical equally imo :-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:30:24 +0300, "Vadim Sytnikov" <syt### [at] rucom> wrote:
> In fact, that is exactly why I would like to get rid of them. There is no such thing
> as SD vs. L subdivision -- so no-one should ever think that it exists.
BTW: Documentation says: they exist! Just take a look into 6.2 chapter in 3.5
documentation (http://www.povray.org/working-docs/id000145.html#6_2)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Vadim Sytnikov <syt### [at] rucom> wrote:
> Why are they there at all? It took a ve-e-ery long time for me to get
> accustomed to several hash marks on a single line in POV SDL files... The
> thing is that, in most languages, it is impossible (well, at least not
> feasible) -- either # starts a comment, or a preprocessor directive.
But all the #-commands in POV-Ray are preprocessor directives. They are
processed before rendering and they don't have actual effect on the rendering
itself (only on the source code which the renderer "sees").
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <bmfs8ucdb3aovi7qp11r8t4hin6qnd3kth@4ax.com>,
W?odzimierz ABX Skiba <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote:
> I have never worked with PolyRay but I just downloaded polydoc.lzh. All files
> inside are 5 years old. It suggests it died and further it suggests there were
> reason for it. Perhaps one of it was limitations in SDL ?
If I recall correctly, it was actually quite a bit more flexible then
POV, but also harder to use. I think one of the advantages of POV was
that it was a lot easier to build up complex objects from other objects,
but PolyRay had some things that have only recently been added to POV.
PolyRay was before my time though...I don't really know anything about
it.
> I consider POV-SDL very elegant :-)
> As I said I don't know POlyRay very well - pont me what exactly is more
> elegant there ?
As I said, I don't know PolyRay, but there are a lot of little details
in POV that are annoying, inconsistent, or just confusing. Some examples:
The limitation of patterned textures in layers.
Having separate background and sky_sphere features. (people often think
sky_sphere is an object, when it is just a fancy background...using just
one keyword would be more elegant)
Not being able to use macros in array initialization blocks.
Not being able to map finishes.
Various things (patterns, warps...) not being declarable.
--
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
TAG web site: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
