Eugene Arenhaus wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> Well... my reason for interest in POV is essentially my interest for
> complex software design, which has shifted in the past three years to
> hierarchies of interacting polymorphic objects in particular.
> 

I like to seriously suggest you one thing:

Before starting to think about radical changes in the design of POV-Ray,
it would be really a good idea to get some experience in actually using
POV.  I think everyone currently involved in POV-Ray development has
either notable own experience in using it or has frequent communication
with those using it.

> [...]
> 
> Sorry, this is not true. The language may be whatever we make it, to
> begin with. No need to stick with what I wrote. :)
> 
> By the way, more keywords is not necessarily a bad thing, if they are
> intuitive. Which is mor readable:
> 
>  sphere { <0,0,0>, 1 }
> 
> or
> 
>  sphere { center <0,0,0> radius 1 } ?
> 
> Readability is a great thing to have, don't underestimate it. And use of
> words like "radius" is not so out of line with existing syntax which
> after all uses words like "texture" already....

'Write-ability' is an important issue too and most people here will
probably agree that writing

sphere { 0, 1 }

is much easier and in this case IMO much faster to read too.

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other 
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/

Post a reply to this message