Christopher James Huff wrote:
> 
> In article <3DD13CF9.CA8287AE@att.net>, LibraryMan <mrm### [at] attnet>
> wrote:
> 
> > Just a point of info I'd like to clarify (or maybe I shouldn't open this
> > can of worms):
> >
> > If I had declared only 2D vectors like so:
> > #declare v_01 = <0.5, 0>;  ... (rather than the 3D I used)
> 
> I think this is the main problem...POV doesn't seem to support declared
> 2D vectors, it seems to promote them to 3D. A language oddity that
> probably isn't worth fixing in 3.5, something to watch out for in 4.0.

Actually it was an intentional design decision. By design the program
presumes the user was brain damaged at the time he wrote the 2D vector
and corrects if for him rather than stopping and issuing an error message.
Microsoft calls such behavior "user friendly" :)

Should it be fixed, and if so in what way? There are only a couple of
places where a 2D vector statement is useful while there are dozens of
places where a 3D vector is mandatory. I think the current behavior
is useful and would support its continued use if asked to vote on it.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message