"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3d0b8956@news.povray.org...
> In article <3d0b536d$1@news.povray.org> , "Thorsten Froehlich"
> <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>
> And before somebody manages to interpret this the wrong way:
>
> Every statement made by others about either of those working correctly or
> changeable to work correctly are wrong!
> I am not going to explain this further as it just wastes my time to teach
> others programming to demonstrate I am correct.  If someone doesn't
> understand it from either my already given explanation or the available
> POV-Ray source code, it doesn't mean that person is correct and nobody
> should jump to the conclusion that the current behavior of POV-Ray 3.5 is
> incorrect in any way based on such a statement.
>
>     Thorsten

It has been my experience that when a discussion heads south, like this one
has, it is usually because the actual cause of the problem isn't being
covered.

It seems more likely to me that the implementation was difficult, and
therefore aborted. Or perhaps it was a political decision, where someone in
charge decided that a feature "isn't necessary", and never mind the people
who are using the program. Maybe someone who was working on it got demoted
or kicked off the project. Maybe a new person was handed the task, and
doesn't know how to fix it yet. Who knows, really?

Why would a feature be "de-implemented"? What advantage is it to the coding
team to eliminate the feature?

Post a reply to this message