On 6/20/2010 6:07 AM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> As for font metrics, the request was for getting /and/ setting the
>> values.
>
> Yes, but as was explained there by Christoph Lipka and me, you cannot
> set them in POV-Ray because they are part of the font. What you can do
> though is use a macro for both getting them and modifying a text object
> accordingly. That is pretty much how they are displayed by other
> programs as well. I.e. to change the spacing between characters, in
> POV-Ray you write a macro that takes a string and then creates text
> objects for each character (internally a POV text object is nothing else
> but a collection of character objects) with a different spacing.

Let's discuss this on bugtracker instead. That is the "proper" place is 
it not?



>> The request was for a native "atan" function. Since the function doesn't
>> exist, I can't see how it's an "existing feature".
>
> Because you confused functions declared in "math.inc" with built-in
> functions. Your feature request simply suffered from a lack of detail
> and confusion of functionality built-in functions vs ones declared in
> math.inc). There is a native "atan" function. What is - well, was - not
> there is a "atand" function returning degrees. That, similar to asind
> and acosd needs to be added to "math.inc".

...and this conclusion could as well have been reached via discussion on 
bugtracker instead of here _if_ the topic had remained _open_ instead of 
closed.



>> There was no duplicate request. One request was for metadata inside the
>> image metatag parameters. The other request was for scene data overlaid
>> on top of the image.
>
> You also need to follow the comments/discussion of the feature requests.

What is that supposed to mean? Is it preferable to discuss multiple 
requests in a single entry? Usually people want a separate report for 
each item.



>> That's the only request anyone "prompted" me about as far as I can see.
>> Judging by the other replies people seem to have understood the request
>> properly.
>
> Well, still Christoph Lipka had to close it because you never said so.
> The logical assumption here then is that given Grimbert J�r�me (Le
> Forgeron) provided a solution with existing SDL that the issue was
> resolved.

Grimbert was not suggesting a solution using SDL, he was suggesting a 
/course of action/ on how the feature should be implemented by devs!



>> I'm willing to discuss things, but if no one replies other than one-line
>> closing message there's not much I can do.
>
> Well, you need to supply more than a one-line feature request then! To
> get more than one-line response to a one-line request would require
> mind-reading, as people would have to guess what ideas are hiding behind
> your request. Usually such speculation leads nowhere, hence it isn't done.

I assume people are going to ask if they don't understand something or 
request further comment. And I presume people are going to state their 
conclusions based on a request _prior_ to closing it so that people can 
solicit further comment. There's a "comment" button next to each task, 
after all, near the "close" button maybe.


-- 
http://isometricland.com

Post a reply to this message