"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> > With built-in functions, i can write :
> > light_source {... area_light ... circular orient adaptive 2}
> > or, as well
> > light_source {... area_light ... adaptive 2 orient circular}
> >
> > I know that almost no programming language allows that kind
> > of parsing feature in user-defined functions, but I regret it.
>
> seemingly, povray developers regret that "kind of parsing feature" since
> it's one of the main reasons for the parser being hard to deal with and
> extend and, thus, here we are talking about a brand new one from scratch
> and possibly well supported externally.

Some aspects I would like the new syntax to provide are:

  Not from scratch, reuse and inherit notational features from current
syntax
  Allow non-programmers to make reasonably good scenes
  Provide the language with some main features we know as being very useful
or necessary but diffucult to code (complicated algotithm, advanced maths
....).
  Let the gurus code these
  Not over-complicate the writing of scenes because of syntax. First concern
should be creativity. However DaVinci and Michelangelo were f... creative
and had a f... technicity. Give them a few color tubes and a few brushes,
and wait 1 hour. Give me the same and wait 1 eternity. The language should
(allow to) hide technicity. Concerning POV, no one can achieve results like
Gille Tran's without having both. But it was pionneer time.
  It will be well suported externally only if the syntax is enough
user-friendly.

Bruno

Post a reply to this message