"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > Zeger Knaepen <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
> > > intuitively I would expect something like "rotate <1,1,0>*45" to rotate 45
> > > degrees around the <1,1,0> vector
> >
> >   What if you want to do is to multiply <1,1,0> by 45 and then use the
> > resulting vector to rotate the object?
>
> Then you'd be back to the 3.x syntax, which is just plain incompatible with what
> I'd prefer. It's all that easy.

Maybe, but I think multiplying the vector by the scalar is by far the most
intuitive meaning to that example. The language would be very inconsistent
otherwise (unless the intention was to ditch the asterisk as a multiplication
token...!).

> (and no, I wouldn't use "rotate <1,1,0>*45" - rather some "rotate <1,1,0>,45",
> which IMO would make it clear what's happening; I think I'd also use "rotate
> <1,1,0>,45 deg".)

....while permitting, e.g., "rotate 30*<1,1,0>,45" or similar? I would hope that
the new SDL would retain the way literals are handled (or close to it), however
the object structure ends up.

Post a reply to this message