In article <3DAC6C9A.AFBF4D0E@gmx.de> , Christoph Hormann 
<chr### [at] gmxde>  wrote:

> I doubt there is much to conclude from this test.  First what it is about
> is a part of POV-Ray not of much interest for someone starting to deal
> with the POV-Ray source code.  The first time I stumbled across POVMS was
> when I added some new element to the statistics and even that did not go
> into depth.  And second you did not really start a discussion about
> anything important.  As it seems you just described a few details about
> something that already exists in POV-Ray.  Why should anyone have concerns
> about that? ;-)

Well, yes, a flame war or someone noticing that it already existed would
have been far more conclusive :-(

> If you really want to find out whether public discussion of things could
> be useful for 4.0 development there is no other way but to try it.

The problem is that if that would be done and we get burned, then we got
burned permanently.  I don't want to have to answer the (as I expect it)
resulting misunderstandings for the next half decade ... the problem is we
can't keep the usual group of general users from reading such public
discussions and getting completely misdirected :-(  No matter how big the
disclaimers ;-)

I am already expecting somebody tell me in a few weeks that I suggested Perl
or Scheme as scripting languages for 4.0 also that was just such a clear
joke...


    Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message