"Bob Hughes" <per### [at] aolcom?subject=PoV-News:> wrote in message
news:395a1633@news.povray.org...
> Hmm, and others might call that scripting clutter to have so many keywords
> which are basically the same thing having personal distinctions about how
they
> ought to work. Not that I'm against more additions or anything, just that
> there must be a correct way and incorrect way a feature works.

I perceive the mathematical correctness you refer to, but in this case that
has nothing to do with what you do with the pattern. The way I see things,
there is no "correct" way to behave for patterns/functions : they are just
tools you use to model. The more tools you have, the better (but I prefer
one tool with much flexibility to a clutter of near identical specialised
ones). Even for features for which physical/mathematical correctness is
important (imho), like highlights, lighting model or radiosity, some variety
is good.

Now, there is one thing I do not know and which may invalidate to my own
eyes what I just wrote : is bumps a standard keyword/function with a
excepted and well defined behaviour in the cg world? If so, it would be
better if the bumps keyword was reserved for that behaviour. Otoh, modifiers
or other keywords would still be a bonus for other sorts of bumps.


> For instance
> you wouldn't want two 'color' keywords, one that is the way it is now and
> another that inverts the rgb into bgr?

<g> there are two color keywords : "color" & "colour" </g>
I think there is a very important difference here : if someone has a bgr
colour, he does not have much work to do to use the standard (in pov and in
the cg world) rgb colour; but I do not know how one could easily use
Megapov's corrected bumps to make a pov's bumps or a Jerome's bumps.


> Sorry, I realize I'm chiseling at a valid point you're making.

mmh
So am I, so am I.


> The various
> ways everything is done should be within reason or it would be out of
control
> I believe. Priority needs to go to physical correctness and I have no
qualms
> about that, even if the breaking of old scenes is caused. All this has
been
> rehashed again and again, sorry for this redundant message.

Many things are rehashed forever, and people do not seem to bore (I speak of
people as a whole, not of particular individuals). (Things like art, death,
beauty, moral, gun control, God(s), MSWindows vs. Linux, bumps, ...)


> All keywords being able work together would mean a consolidation of the
> programs source I guess. Maybe that could be something planned for version
> 4.0 at least. Just as long as there isn't straggler code in it like
> acceptance of POV-Ray 1.0 or 2.0 syntax. '#version' is obviously only a
> compatibility feature, having no redeeming value other than to confine
parts
> of source code to their respective areas. Anyway, I'm only interested in
all
> of this from afar, it's not something I know about from the inside.

My own <repetition> I still think that Pov could use some syntax rewritings
</repetition>.


Povingly,

Philippe

Post a reply to this message