"Mr" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> Very true that more explicit names are required.

Explicit yes, as well as memorable and quick and easy to type, if possible.
The underscores make me cringe a bit.

> And +1 vote for a proof of concept macro set, so pragmatic use will better
> reorient reflection.

I _STILL_ look at descriptions of functions and macros and say to myself, "Oh,
no.... HOW do I actually USE that?  What do I DO with it?   Where in the code
does it GO?  Is it a standalone line?  Is it transformation on my object?  Is it
a value that use to do something else...?
And that can waste 10 minutes until I wrap my head around the underlying theory
of operation.

> ... having to go to through some
> "download>unzip>skim-through-newsgroups-for-doc" procedures for CR's macro makes
> one (probably mistakingly) believe that this macro has been judged sub-standard
> by the main team, so using it seems more risky /costly / not worthy /whatever...
>
> All this makes it appear like POV is somewhat limited to phong spheres would you
> choose to get more "seriously" into it.

Right - the standard distribution files may not have been touched in the last 20
years.

We could certainly use some of the nicer macro packages integrated more tightly
with "the system".   I'd say that things don't get used, due to a number of
things.   Time, knowledge or memory that they exist, the learning curve to
implement them, the energy and daring to spend the time and effort trying new
things....   Inertia....

> Of course I do not pretend to speak for macro authors, but as a user, so one
> could argue that these authors might not want their macros included ?

.... then don't write them and post them on the internet?
I mean, I understand the philosophical and practical theory of patents and IP,
but IMO, I think that there's a ridiculous level of "we can't use that without a
signed contract from the author" (who may be long gone or, sadly passed from
this mortal coil).   If it got posted, we use it.  Especially if it's just for
something like an include file or an insert menu snippet.   If they complain, we
can delete it.  It's not like it's critical source code.

> Am I missing something or does this naive opinion actually make sense?

Nope.  Not missing anything.   There are a lot of opinions that make perfect
sense, but which people have been conditioned to somehow find "offensive".
Ain't got time for that nonsense.

Post a reply to this message