In article <397F0339.14F2FA78@itam.cas.cz>, Disnel <dis### [at] itamcascz> 
wrote:

> Simon Lemieux wrote:
> > > In article <chrishuff-81E2AC.17022224072000@news.povray.org>, Chris 
> > > Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> > > No. Those are specific features of C++ functions, and perhaps of
> > > functions in some other languages. They are not required in order for
> > > something to be a "function", but are features of a specific 
> 
> And why not use some interpreted OO language, such as Python?

I somehow completely miss your point...

Do you mean use Python for the framework/library, or for the scene 
description language?
If for the scene description language, what would be the benefits? Some 
of the problems would be: forcing a language not designed for scene 
description to be a scene description language, forcing everyone who 
uses POV to relearn the language, making all the sample code, scene 
files, includes, and macros out there completely useless, making POV 
more difficult to learn, etc, etc, etc.

If for the programmer's framework, I have already suggested Java, which 
probably has more people with experience in it, and has many 
similarities to C++ which would make a port easier.

And what does this have to do with the definition of a function?

-- 
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