In article <39815686.AA9BAAB5@itam.cas.cz>, Disnel <dis### [at] itamcascz> 
wrote:

> Better will be true OO style: each object can contain each object, 
> messages sent to object are also objects and result of message sent 
> to object is also object.

This could be done...just pass the message object as a parameter to a 
member macro.


> Sure, they can.

That is what I meant: they can't not be like this. It wouldn't make 
sense for them to be any other way.


> Yes, it will work, but it will waste memory and CPU time,
> its no problem with sphere but if you want make descendant from 50MB
> tree, it will be very unfortunate.
> Second, it will be unnecessary compilcated to use.
...snip...
> But rebuilding whole scene for each frame is once more wasting
> of CPU time, is some cases, chance to use objects from previsous
> scene with only slight modifications can improve rendering time.
> For example smoothing height field, tree generation .... It can be
> done once for whole animation.

First, I don't think it would be any slower and not much more memory 
intensive. Some data could be shared, and only duplicated when 
absolutely necessary.
And it wouldn't be more complicated...you have to add those objects to 
the scene in the first place, being able to modify objects which are 
already in the scene could easily get more complex than modifying 
variables, and it might not be as efficient in memory usage.

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message