Christoph Hormann wrote:

> Wolfgang Wieser wrote:
>> [...]
>> 
>> But about things like my "radial slope pattern" (rather small and simple)
>> or the "progressive refinement patch" (which would require somebody else
>> write the windows/mac - related part).
> 
> The PRT patch is on the 'considered' list of MegaPOV for some time now
> but without support on the other platforms it won't be included.  You
> say 'somebody else' should write that but that's not the way it is
> likely to work.
> 
Well, I simply have no access to mac here - and no windows (compiler) 
around. So in case we really want to consider putting it into megapov, 
I/we need to ask for somebody willing to do that. 

> I only had a quick look at the implementation but the design is somewhat
> problematic - you implement a lot of stuff in a new C++ class but this
> no way forms a well defined unit inside POV.  Implementing a new render
> method in a C++ class does not make POV-Ray a C++ program and it will be
> quite painful to apply other changes to this part afterwards. 
>
Hmm... What would you suggest should be done differently? 
I put the code into the class in order to surely avoid naming collisions 
and to make it easy to see what belongs to the PRT patch. 

And about POV and C++, I'm a bit puzzled when reading the rest of the 
code, especially the image IO. It seemed to me that decision was taken 
to C++ify the C code for 3.5 and above ending up in a lot of C in cpp 
files with a little bit of C++. I'm not having a very good feeling when 
it comes to that. 

> Not to
> mention that text output via fprintf(stderr, ...) is not the right way.
> 
Yes, correct. There are some things which need to be cleaned up for 
actual inclusion. The fprintf's are basically debug messages which I 
found to be useful so I did not remove them. 

Wolfgang

Post a reply to this message