"Warp" wrote:
>   Eh, you didn't understand what I meant: I meant that
> a macro would be cumbersome because of limited syntax
> capabilities.

The suggested syntax I've described in the other thread is not *that*
cumbersome. You have to write a few more characters per point, yes, but
complaining about that is most of all nit-picking IMO.

> Using an "illegal" value to mean optionality is not
> very handy either (in a worst case scenario you would
> have to write tens or even hundreds of these "optional"
> time values even though you are using just two or three
> regular time values).

Copy and paste.

>   The idea was that you don't have to write any time
> value for those points which you want to be calculated
> automatically.

I must admit that it would make it better for the purposes of obfuscated
signatures. Pity eh?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:    http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated Feb 16)
POV-Ray Users:   http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message