"Nicolas George" <nicolas$george@salle-s.org> wrote in message 
news:46f1088f$1@news.povray.org...
> use Colors;
>
> scene [
>
>  camera [
>    location => [ 2, 5, -3 ],
>    look_at => [ 0, 0, 0 ]
>  ],
>
>  light_source [
>    [ 0, 10, -2 ],
>    White
>  ],
>
>  union [
>    box [
>      [ -1, -1, -1 ], [ 1, 1, 1 ],
>      pigment => Red
>    ],
>    sphere [
>      [ 0, 1.5, 0 ], 0.5
>      pigment => Yellow
>    ]
>  ]
>
> ]

I prefer the current syntax actually. All the commas after ] seem completely 
redundant, the keyword scene is a nice idea if it would be possible to 
define multiple scenes in one file, but it should be optional.
The line "use Colors;" seems completely out of place for two reasons: first, 
Colors what? Colors.inc ? Colors.pov ? ..? second, considering the rest of 
the syntax, wouldn't something like "include [colors.inc,textures.inc]" be 
more consistent?

I also don't like the change from curly brackets to square brackets.

Actually I think a new SDL should look more or less the same as the old one, 
ie. a C-like syntax, but with some new things, like cleaner syntax, OO, ...
For example: instead of '#declare X=1;' you would have something like 'float 
X=1;' (I don't think there's need for both int and float, since, afaik 
internally it's all floats).

However, there are many things in the current SDL that I actually like, 
although they might be considered weird by programmers.
For example, maybe it would be cleaner to have something like:

Camera ActiveCamera = new Camera();
ActiveCamera.location = new Vector(0,0,1);
ActiveCamera.lookAt = new Vector(0,0,0);

But it's a lot easier, especially for non-programmers, the way it is now:

camera {
    location z
    look_at 0
}

But well, I suppose making a cleaner, stricter syntax will always lead to 
having a more difficult to learn syntax :(

cu!
-- 
#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
#end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
_(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x)            // ZK http://www.povplace.com

Post a reply to this message