I think of the the terms offered, "spacing" or "dispersion" best reflect the
funcion of this keyword. Of the two, "dispersion" might cause confusion with
a certain other patch - and it's longer. So my vote goes to "spacing"
(unless you find a shorter synonym for the typeamatically challenged like me
:)

Margus

Nathan Kopp wrote in message <370### [at] Koppcom>...
>I personally don't like the way I'm using the 'density' keyword to specify
>photon density.  Usually, when you say density, you want to give a
>items-per-area(or volume) value, not a length value.  So... what would be a
>better keyword?  Would 'spacing' be good? (since you are giving the spacing
>between photons)  I do not want to switch the value to a real density,
because
>right now photon 'density' and gather 'radius' are directly related
(linearly),
>making it easy to test with a low number of photons and switch to a large
>number with predictable results (my 'phd' variable, for those who've looked
at
>my source).
>
>So... is 'spacing' good?  Any other ideas?
>
>-Nathan

Post a reply to this message