Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   That's not what you said in your original post. You made absolutely no
> mention of "it's impossible to do without modifying the amount of parameters
> taken by the macro". You just said it was impossible because of some
> derivative which would have to be calculated. Your arguments were incorrect.

No, they were not. They were just based on assumptions that you failed to grasp.
So you've been trying hard to troll your way out (and still are), trying not to
lose your face about it.

Admit it: You understood bullshit, so you wrote bullshit. Happens to the best of
us.

It has always been about a library macro. Changing interfaces of library macros
that must be expected to be in widespread use is never an option. My mistake,
admittedly, was probably in assuming that you were aware of this.

That mistake doesn't change a iota of the fact that with the given interface,
fixing the macro is impossible. Fundamentally.

And calling me a *liar* - mind you, that's a word usually reserved for people
*deliberately* telling nonsense - is *way* over the top. It would be even if I
had been mistaken.

Post a reply to this message