Chris Huff wrote:

> And are you sure about it evaluating to +infinity? I thought it was
> NaN...

No, I'm not at all sure. It's quite possible that it's NaN.

> It could have something to do with the macro speed enhancements...
> I thought nested definitions weren't allowed in the official version
> either, but I couldn't find any mention of this restriction in the
> documentation...

Nested definitions are apparently perfectly happy in the official version.

> Does that spline include require nested macro definitions? I can't think
> of a good reason to use them...

See my reply to Nathan in this thread, about "dynamic" macros.

> Couldn't you just use one of the spline patches included in MegaPOV? Or
> are there specific features in Colfax's spline macros which you need?

Partially.  the spline macros allow for such interesting beasts as blob
splines, as well as several very handy tweaking parameters.  However, if the
"no nested macros" rule is set in stone, it would probably be possible to
re-write it in terms of "keyword" splines.  Just wondering if there was any
great reason that I did not know of that was swaying the decision either way..

-Alex V.

Post a reply to this message