Jim Holsenback <jho### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 1. One obvious presentation issue is different ways of presenting
> preformatted <pre></pre> passages of SDL. This is a pretty simple example,
> but I think in gets the point across.

> sphere {0,1 pigment {rgb <1,0,>}}

> vs.

> sphere
> {
>   pigment {rgb <1,0,0>}
> }

  In my opinion the degree of SDL example code layout should depend on the
*relevance* of that specific block of code in the context of the example.

  Fully laying out eg. an object definition, as in the second example above,
makes it stand out, compared to if it was a one-liner, like in the former
case.

  The thing is, usually you only want to make the parts *relevant* to the
example stand out. The other parts are just filler code to make the scene
complete.

  Example: Most example scenes require a camera definition and at least
one light source so that the scene can be rendered and will look good.
However, if the chapter in question is *not* talking about cameras and
light sources, then the exact details of the camera and light source in
the example are irrelevant.

  For example, if you were giving an SDL scene as an example of how to use
a pigment map, and you want the example to be complete (ie. you can simply
put the example in a .pov file and render it, and you'll get the example
image), the most important thing the example is trying to convey is the
object and its texture (which contains the pigment map). The camera and
light source are completely irrelevant in this example.

  Thus, in my opinion, it's *good* to make the camera and the light source
definitions one-liners, but fully laying out the object being exemplified.
This makes the object (and its texture) to stand out, while the irrelevant
camera and light source definitions are submitted to just a mandatory filler
role which don't take but 2 lines of visual space in the example code.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message