Rune <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:
> This was not the issue in question. You was talking about the simplicity
> of the macro. The issue of the mathematical correctness has already been
> discussed, where Karl pointed out that it would be useful nonetheless.
> That was the point where you swithed the subject to the issue of the
> simplicity, which I responded to in my last post. Now you switched the
> subject back again, and we could go on like this forever.

  I didn't change the subject (isn't "you switched the subject" a rather
cheap attack?).
  My point was that if he wants a function which does not work as its
mathematical specification says, he can easily do a macro implementing
such function himself. It makes no sense to include such macro in the
official distribution (in the exact same way as it makes no sense including
a macro which performs a division so that if something is divided by 0 it
will return 0, which is almost an identical case).
  A macro which squares a number might not be too useful, but at least it's
mathematically correct, which justifies better its inclusion. It doesn't
have any "if you give illegal parameters it will return a mathematically
incorrect result" exception.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message