"Anders K." <and### [at] prostard2gcom> wrote in message
news:3d0b768f@news.povray.org...
> > Too bad... I liked that nifty ^
> >
> > I'd like to plead its case, but obviously there was already exentsive
> > discussion about it and I missed it... Could anybody kindly point me to
> that
> > discussion ?
>
> http://news.povray.org/3cf11123@news.povray.org

Thnaks

> I think Thorsten's main argument was that changing it would supposedly
make
> expressions like x*-y illegal, even though I see no reason that should be
> the case. After the parser sees 'x*', it should be expecting a new
> expression, and when it sees the '-' it shouldn't care whether unary '-'
has
> lower precedence than '*', right?

Er... I am no programmer, neither mathematician... Seeing the heated debate
that took place, I do not really want to step into this discussion, or to
reopen it. As a user, both solutions do seem acceptable. It is true that
pow(float,float) does prevent this 'ambiguity'.



I remember some other intense arguments about some other features or bugs
(depending on the opinion one held) (e.g. : normal scaling ; media scaling)
and I trust the Pov-team to adopt a, or the, good solution. However, the
entire removal of the hat operator, rather than the implementation or the
continuation of the standard behaviour (searching for that I realised that

irritation than by reason... Yet, I understand after such a long and intense
underground work.



On a lighter note, I am looking forward to the re-emergence of this
discussion for the various hat-patches that are bound to appear when the 3.5
source code is released ;-)



Keep up this excellent work !





Povingly,





Philippe

Post a reply to this message