>   You can create an extremely wide variety of geometrical patterns with
> functions, the object pattern or the combination of both (to, for example,
> transform the shape of the latter with the former).
>   It is perfectly possible to make three red circles in a row on the surface
> of a white cylinder with functions.

I was not aware that object pattern was added to POV at the time when
the document was written.
 
> : Principle IV. Full scripting to replace macros
>   I really don't like the word "replace".

My bad. Make it "Full scripting to complement macros". :)
 
>   Of course shortcuts and support for features which make some things easier
> are nice, but the current SDL is not as bad as you are trying to make it
> sound.

I did not try to make it sound bad. I was merely looking at a good
thing, and saying "hmm, if we take this and this and connect them in a
slightly different way, it's going to work even better!"

> : PoV3 only has limited macro support, with parameters strictly
> : precalculated and support of true functions absent.
>   What is a "true function", and how does it differ from #macros or functions?

Well, with a retrospect this might have been stated better, you're
right.

Right now, if I am not mistaken, POV builds the scene once and then
renders it, right? For another animation frame, it parses it again and
renders it. At least it was so when I checked, and I heard that
complaint from many people - parsing takes too long for every frame.

So what I suggest is: parse once; and allow scripting to work on the
parsed scene. Scripts ("true functions") would work on scene tree in
memory, not on scene text file like macros - saves tons of re-parsing
and facilitates a great many things.
 
>   I didn't understand this paragraph at all. How do #macros and functions
> "impede parametric generation of scenes and animation"?

Try to pass a macro to a macro?
 
>   As for your OOP language suggestion, that has been discussed countless time
> before. It's not as a trivial issue as you seem to think.

I do not think it was trivial. It took me years of toil to learn how to
design such things - hardly trivial at all.
 
> : We suggest that the only and sole data type used by PoV4 should be a
> : vector.
>   Why? So no more strings nor floats?
>   How do you print some text with a vector?

Another blooper of mine, thank you! :)

It is meant to mean "only and sole data type used in ray casting".
Additional data types of course will be used, only not in the common
interface.

(As for floats - a float is a 1-dimensional vector.)
 
>   By the way, if this text is "By Eugene Arenhaus", why do you speak in
> plural? Are you a member of a royal family or something?

No, just using formal and impersonal style.

Post a reply to this message