Rune wrote in message <3a6868e6$1@news.povray.org>...
> "Wlodzimierz ABX Skiba" wrote:
> > patch is faster than macro and I think this is good usage
> > patch solution instead of macro solutions
>
> I fully agree about this.
> But a macro can be useful until the patch is ready.

I agree with it, but ... patch is nearly ready :-)
I don't want to forbid you play with your stuff
I'm just trying to compare results
if patch serves more accurate result it is worth to play for me.
perhaps you missed example: http://www.abx.art.pl/pov/nonlinear/step3.jpg
more images after weekend with wife and daughter :-)

and .... can you twist plane{} ? :-)
result is very interesting, belive me

> It is also possible that the patch is not as flexible.
> Will the user be able to use functions where both input and output is
> vectors?

in my specifications of possibilities, yes
in first version, no

> That would be the only way to get full control over the
> deformation.

this is part of my greater plans
I want patch functions to allow:
1. more/less input parameters
2. more output values
3. default values for some input parameters
4. local variables
5. calling during parsing

I've started with such patch in November and 1. and 3. works fine and 5. seems
be easy
but 2. and 4. is big thing and therefore I wait with that for source of POV 3.5
becouse I don't waste time for double coding. I don't know structure of sources
designed by Team for functions in 3.5 therefore I must wait.

ABX

Post a reply to this message