In article <3a6223c8@news.povray.org>, "Scott Hill" 
<sco### [at] innocentcom> wrote:

>     Would POV choke on something like this ?
> 
> // Create an 'empty' glow object.
> #declare glowObj=
> object {
>  glow {...}
> }

It would currenty choke on this, though I'm thinking of allowing "empty" 
objects to be used. They simply wouldn't show up, wouldn't have min/max 
extents, etc...but they could have textures, interior statements, 
transformations...this would mostly be useful if someone adds the 
ability to attach variables to objects, and access attributes of objects.


> // Union our glow with other non-glowing objects
> union {
>  object { .... } // non-glowing stuff
>  object { glowObj }
> }

If the above is done, this will work fine.


>     If you could fix it to work like that, then it should also be 
> possible to allow this :
> 
> // Union an explicit glow object with non-glowing stuff.
> union {
>  object { .... } // non-glowing stuff
>  object { glow{...} }
> }
> 
>     Dunno if it's any better like that - it does save adding new keywords 
> to the language (but, then, is that a bad thing ?) and it also seems 
> more intuitive to me (but, then, intuitiveness is subjective) - any 
> thoughts ?

The one problem with this is that it is inconsistent and 
*counterintuitive*. If you read "object {glow {}}", you will think 
"glow" is a kind of object, when it is actually an effect, like media, 
being applied to an "object". I'd rather add a keyword then keep going 
"No, it isn't an object. Yes, it *looks* like one, but it isn't one." 
whenever someone misunderstands it. People might see that line, think 
the "object {}" portion is unnecessary (since it looks like "glow" is an 
object), and when they delete it and render, the whole union is glowing!

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/

<><

Post a reply to this message