On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:26:11 +0100, Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>> Pov3.5 takes the best of Megapov, remove the bugs, and makes it the official
>> version from which all future versions will be build.. I don't see why
>> Pov4.0 should be a complete rewrite.. Anyway, making Pov3.5 first, is the
>> logical way to go.. It's like to climp up the stairs, instead of trying to
>> jump to the top.
> It's not my idea to make POV4.0 a complete rewrite (although I agree that it would
> probably be a good thing).  But didn't the POV-Team say that POV4.0 would be a
complete
> rewrite in C++?

Yes.  Most of that has to do with having total ownership over the code.  It
might surprise you to know that some of the code is not necessarily ours to
do with as we will.  Thus, we can't really rewrite large chunks of the 
license.

> If I'm wrong about this, then I have no problems whatsoever with POV3.5, but if
that's
> right, I really think starting with POV4.0 would have been a better idea (and no:
I'm not
> telling you what to do, I'm telling you what I would do)

But is that what you would do if it had been years since an official version 
was released, the users were getting restless, and 4.0 was probably still
years away?

BTW, parts of the 4.0 rewrite have already started.  Option handling is 
totally redone in 3.5, for example.

-- 
#macro R(P)z+_(P)_(P)_(P+1)_(P+1)+z#end#macro Q(C,T)bicubic_patch{type 1u_steps
6v_steps 6R(1)R(3)R(5)R(7)pigment{rgb z}}#end#macro _(Y)#local X=asc(substr(C,Y
,1))-65;<T+mod(X,4)div(X,4)9>-2#end#macro O(T)Q("ABEFUQWS",T)Q("WSXTLOJN",T)#
end O(0)O(3)Q("JNKLCGCD",0)light_source{x 1}// ron### [at] povrayorg

Post a reply to this message