In article <3E2### [at] alphalinkcomau>, Edward Coffey
<eco### [at] alphalinkcomau> wrote:

> I assume when you say "any array[x][y][z]" you mean that you don't want 
> to hardcode the dimensions of the array into your program. If I'm wrong 
> about that, the answer is straightforward, declare your function with 
> the dimensions of the array hardcoded:
> void fn(int ar[5][5][5]);
> On the other hand, you may want more flexibility, so read on.

Indeed :( Flexibility is key.  I thought it would be a simple command
I'm missing, so I'll clarify what it is I need to do.  I'm basically
using C++ to parse instead of POV for obvious speed problems.  I
wouldn't know the first thing about patching POV, but writing a simple
script with output isn't a problem.  This said, I basically specify the
initial conditions of a three-dimensional array of vectors or floats (I
have the vector struct thing under control) and let it fly.  A crucial
part is the interpolation of a vector or float at an arbitrary point
within the array.  This will need to be done thousands of times to say
the least, so yes, flexibility is crucial.

> 1. Use a vector of vectors of vectors of your datatype. This will eat up 
> lots of memory, probably be slow, and not give you most of the benefits 
> of the vector class anyway.

Vector of vectors of vectors?  I wouldn't know quite how to do that,
but that doesn't sound like too much of an issue.

> 2. Do as you say, passing in the base pointer of your array to the 
> function, you will also need to pass in the dimensions of the array, as 
> ...
> compiler will need to be washed thoroughly in warm soapy water after 
> processing code like this.

With plenty of carefully written max() statements for safeguard, I
might try this since it sounds like it might be necessary.  Maybe
*(array + coords(a,b,c)) will get the job done.  Still a little
unsettling though.

> 3. The right way. Write your own three dimensional array class 
> ...
> Here's somewhere to help you get started:
> http://<site deceased>/articles/2000/0012/0012c/0012c.htm?topic=articles

I'll take a look as soon as I have time.  I know *of* the overload and
class idea, but that'll also take a little work to iron out.  I miss
plain old, slow POV...

> > (Also, why does the line, double N = 1/3; give me .333...?
> 
> What would you expect it to give you?

Whoops, I meant *doesn't*, as Warp pointed out, but I understand now. 
I guess that's why all those POV codes had a 'superfluous' 1.0 instead
of 1  (with a period to end the sentence but not to confuse the meaning
of what I said).

Thanks for all your help.  You too, Warp.  I just didn't have time to
reply to both messages tonight.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message