hi,

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> > I remember reading (in one of the newsgroup posts) about an issue/bug regarding
> > the '#default {}' directive, which also works without the '#'.  fwiw:
>
> Yes, and there was more than that as well.
>
> see:
>
http://news.povray.org/povray.general/thread/%3Cweb.5d8f1cd3fe1f4a21e462584c0%40news.povray.org%3E/?mtop=428173&moff=
5


thanks for digging this out, sad to say I'd forgotten the a lot (most?) of the
details.


> ...
> If you have an example which results in an actual error at parse time,
> I'd like to get it.

I happened to come across an error a few days ago  :-), I'll try and reproduce
it with a little scene, to post.


> I have a collection of parser test cases and I spent time yesterday
> capturing/creating parser test cases for these '#' variants. I didn't
> come up with anything that generated an actual parse error - or render
> problem - only the warnings above.
>
> I did come up with a case with isolated #s ahead of a bare 'declare'
> which did NOT generate the warnings above (I found a parser bug) though
> the render result was still fine.
>
> .....
>
> Unsure if you were agreeing we should be getting such warnings, or
> saying POV-Ray does generate such a warning. If the latter, I never saw
> that while trying different things. If warnings for #Primitive_Name do
> sometimes happen, I'd like an example test case for my collection.
>
> Also had the thought last night, Does say '#accuracy 0.001' work..? It
> does.

I think I'm mostly with Alain on this, both '#object' and '#accuracy' are ..
objectionable imo.


> So, yes - there's still a lot of work that needs to be done with the parser.
> And that may explain why clipka's locked himself in an isolation chamber for
> quite some time now.   If that's what he's actually doing, then he may need
> years of therapy...

when was the last time?  must be a year by now.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message