Anthony Bennett wrote:

> Also, about that man's ideas: they're sorta good. I don't like the idea of 0
> backward-compatibility. That sucks. I really did not understand what he
> wanted to do with stacks. He really lost me on that point.

This is exactly what I didn't mean: It should _not_ be totally re-written, just
expanded with some new possibilities. It would be _optional_ to have attributes
in an object, and it would be _optional_ to have methods for an object. You could
still do like you're used to, like this:

box{
  <>,<>
  texture{}
}

...and it would still render as a beautiful box, without first being declared as
a "class" and instanced with object{}. But, I personally would like to have the
option to declare it like this:

#declare MyBox=box{
  <>,<>
  texture{}

  attribute speed;
  attribute direction;

  #macro Move()
    translate speed*direction
  #end
}

What I miss most is being able to access the different parts of an object like
the position, size, texture etc. If those were accessable via dot
notation(.position, .size, .texture etc) things would light up a great deal.

Once again, do not remove the backward-compability, just add some new features
that expands the scripting language and that can be used _optionally_.

- Mikael.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Carneholm
Dep. of Computer Science


http://www.studenter.hb.se/~arch
E-mail: sa9### [at] idautbhbse

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'us-ascii' (1 KB)