Rune wrote:
> 
> 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
> --

Thank you for precise expression of my thoughts - with one additional
sidestep ;) : since simpleness obviously is NOT a valid criterion for
exclusion ( didn't you mention VDist before ?), the reason for INclusion
probably is, that since many people can (and WILL) write such a macro, it's
helpful to provide it, so that there's just one name for that functionality
floating around, which simplifies exchange of scene files - and that's all I
wanted to express.

I REALLY whished some people would READ the posts they are answering ( now,
this one is NOT for you, Rune ), cause I already stated that I have already
written such a macro for myself, and yes, it is short, and yes, it is
simple, really don't need help with that :)

All in all, vnormalize is as redundant as the "^"-operator, because even the
docs describe its definition in terms of other POV-functions, so for
consistency it should be removed too ... ;)

( now, DID you all see that smiley ???!!!^)

Karl
--
The two most common things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
(H.Ellison)

Post a reply to this message