Warp wrote:
>   I didn't change the subject (isn't "you switched
> the subject" a rather cheap attack?).

Yes, perhaps... :/

> 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.

Many macros in the include files have no mathematical specifications at
all, they're just included because they're useful. Since we know that
there are many people who would also find the macro in question useful,
I don't see how it's any different from the others. There can be more
than one reason to include a macro, mathematical correctness being one,
and usefulness being another. The include files have 'em both.

Now, the macro in question is rather short and would be easy to make for
the user himself, but that also applies to macros that are already in
the include files. When deciding whether or not a short macro should be
included, I don't see why it makes any difference if the criteria for
inclusion is mathematical correctness or if it is usefulness. In both
cases the macro is valuable (an argument for inclusion), but also very
easy to create (an argument against inclusion).

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World:  http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated May 20)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Ring:  http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message