Mike Williams <mik### [at] nospamplease> wrote in
news:o44### [at] econymdemoncouk: 

>>Function declaration and namespace
>>http://news.povray.org/l2ji3uc2k9su99o2gct3n2thgqoq7f4pd5%404ax.com

> I got totally confused by this thread, and can't seem to see if
> anything ever actually got confirmed, and if so, what.

To clarify, the original issue was that an identifier which has been used 
to declare a function name cannot be reused as the name of a macro 
parameter.  I can specifically confirm that the sample code provided 
(below) will not parse.

#local F=function {x}
#macro P(F) #end

While this might not look like a big deal, consider that the following 
won't parse because Pt is a parameter used in transforms.inc:

#declare Pt=function{1}
#include "shapes.inc"

Nor, for that matter, will this parse:

#macro Pt(X) #end
#include "shapes.inc"

The net result is no macro or function may have the same name as _any macro 
parameter name in the standard include files._  Given that none of the 
parameter names in the standard macros comply with the traditional lower-
case only limitation on reserved names, nor are the names documented, 
naming macros and functions has become somewhat of a gamble. 

IMO, there's at least one problem here, in terms of the namespace 
requirements, the naming of parameters in the standard macros, and/or in 
the list of reserved keywords.

>>Wrong highlighting in editor (function_id)
>>http://news.povray.org/jfji3ug1faevn1jk3mlko64sb71ptmmn97%404ax.com
 
> Unconfirmed

Confirmed now.


Incidentally, do you have a current list of unconfirmed bugs?  I'd like to 
go through it and look for confirmable problems.

Post a reply to this message