Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Indeed, examples of things that will certainly change are all those little
> bits and pieces where the language itself is inconsistent. I.e. in some
> places we use [ ... ] for maps and in others we don't. And then there are
> those objects where the syntax specifies the number of elements in advance,
> which isn't (always) necessary at all, and in various cases just makes
> hand-editing a scene hard. Then there are the bits and pieces where you
> cannot actually use dot (aka ".something") syntax as expected. And so on,
> and so on.

Splines? :-)  I use them a LOT now knowing they may change.  It'd be really
cool though if the same variable could simultaniously be treated as an
array of the defining vectors (4d format) & as a spline.  I.e MySpline[5]
returns a 4D vector where t was the value along the spline & MySpline(0.5)
would do what it does now.

> Plus of course, various directive issues, like the fun stuff you can do with
> macros writing to files including macros (a kind of self-modifying code),
> which makes parsing a mess, slow, and can even make it unreliable. And while
> this may go, certainly there will be a way to parse from user-generated

:-(  No more arbitrary text output?  Does that mean quotation mark
encapsulated & comma-separated output only?

Charles

Post a reply to this message