 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <chr### [at] netplex aussieorg> ,
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> So does POV, functions.inc. It is annoying though, confusing to newbies,
> and slower than a built-in keyword.
It isn't slower as far as the implementation is concerned. And parsing
slowdowns do not really matter for functions.inc in a non-trivial scene. It
does keep out a hundred or so keywords however, which is a great benefit for
everybody who does not happen to be using one of those functions in a
particular scene.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:22:59 +0200, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> Any help to fullfill democracy in this syntax designing ?
keyword:
float:
Philippe Debar, Christoph Hormann, Wlodzimierz Skiba
Thanks. I'll try to make something in the middle. I'll use integers to
recognize tokens ;-)
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3d810f73@news.povray.org>,
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> > So does POV, functions.inc. It is annoying though, confusing to newbies,
> > and slower than a built-in keyword.
> It isn't slower as far as the implementation is concerned. And parsing
> slowdowns do not really matter for functions.inc in a non-trivial scene. It
> does keep out a hundred or so keywords however, which is a great benefit for
> everybody who does not happen to be using one of those functions in a
> particular scene.
A user-defined identifier is just as fast to identify and resolve as
identifying a token? I'm doubtful about that...I wouldn't be surprised
if the difference is too small to be important, though. It's somewhat
annoying when you forget to include functions.inc (there have been
several users with that problem), but it is useable and better than
integer codes.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <t584ouk300oi4mdttqhkj4le7hfu1dth6q@4ax.com>,
ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> Thanks. I'll try to make something in the middle. I'll use integers to
> recognize tokens ;-)
What do you mean? I've run that through my head several times, and can't
see what you could be planning.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
t584ouk300oi4mdttqhkj4le7hfu1dth6q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:22:59 +0200, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> > Any help to fullfill democracy in this syntax designing ?
>
> keyword:
Don't rule out the possibility that Ken Tyler put "keyword" just for the
sake of symmetry in the thread ;-) Float, keyword, float, keyword... Putting
"float" would have ruined the whole thing.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> t584ouk300oi4mdttqhkj4le7hfu1dth6q@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:22:59 +0200, ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> > > Any help to fullfill democracy in this syntax designing ?
> >
> > keyword:
>
> Don't rule out the possibility that Ken Tyler put "keyword" just for the
> sake of symmetry in the thread ;-)
Would I do that?
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3D829CE1.156832C4@pacbell.net...
> Would I do that?
Without any doubt.
A further enticement was the lack of identation in your answer, coming after
perfectly indented >> ones. The addition of a uppercase "K" was a nice touch
of originality too.
Now you may actually prefer the "keyword" solution but this would be getting
annoyingly on-topic.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> 3D829CE1.156832C4@pacbell.net...
>
> > Would I do that?
>
> Without any doubt.
Ouch! I'm wounded.
> A further enticement was the lack of identation in your answer, coming after
> perfectly indented >> ones. The addition of a uppercase "K" was a nice touch
> of originality too.
The wolf gives a sheepish grin.
> Now you may actually prefer the "keyword" solution but this would be getting
> annoyingly on-topic.
It is easier to search the docs for a partially remembered keyword than it is
to find a single float variable. In my advanced state of decay I need every
edge I can get to keep up with you younger folks.
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:11:55 -0400, Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
wrote:
> What do you mean?
I will use keywords.
ABX
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:
> Any idea for nice name for interpolation without interpolation ?
> In my rewrtitten sphere_sweep module I have added additional types for
> interpolations. One of them is something like "no interpolation" - it makes
> set of spheres without connections - then in fact it works for spheres just
What do you mean by "set of spheres", the ones that control the shape of
the sweep or the sweep itself, with fewer spheres than infinity? :) That
would be important, because with "no interpolation" I would associate no
interpolation of the control spheres, which would result in no sweep at
all (or, if you want to make them visible, the control spheres
themselves).
I guess what you mean is throw away most of the spheres of the sweep,
something like the famous "merry.pov" picture, if you happen to know
this one? Then you have the same interpolation as with the sphere_sweep
as it is now: linear, cubic and b-spline, just the result will look
different. If you want to have this, I would find it more intuitive to
have a whole new keyword for this.
You may need to have additional keywords, anyways, since how do you
specify how many spheres you want in the sweep, or how closely they
should be packed?
One last thought: This would be not a "real" sphere sweep at all after
the definition by J.J. van Wijk, but that's a question left to the
philosophers, I guess. ;)
Jochen Lippert
--
No smilies were harmed in the making of this message ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
