|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
In article <403c3ec3$1@news.povray.org>,
"Hughes, B." <omn### [at] charter net> wrote:
> > make it easier for the programmer types to create extensions for POV
> > (lens flares, for example), and make those extensions easier to use.
>
> I guess it could be, if I followed any of this talk at all.
For example, being able to make a lens flare object that you can
translate around, put in a CSG, etc.
> Simple can be good, but... What I'm imagining happening is that a simple
> sphere might look like:
>
> ThisSphere.sphere {<1,2,3>,1}
That wouldn't be any syntax I recognize. It could easily end up looking
like:
def ThisSphere = sphere {<1,2,3>,1}
> And continued usage (adding a color for example):
>
> ThisSphere.color {<0.1,0.2,0.3,1,0>}
ThisSphere.pigment.color = <0.1,0.2,0.3,1,0>;
> Where MySphere remains defined but gets additional info attached to it. Or
> all at once:
>
> ThisSphere.sphere.color {<1,2,3>,1,<0.1,0.2,0.3,1,0>}
def ThisSphere = sphere {<1,2,3>, 1 pigment {<0.1,0.2,0.3,1,0>}}
The dot syntax is just about always used for accessing parts of an
object, not for creating one. Like vector .x, .y, .z, or color .red,
.green, etc.
> Then raytraced when only the name stands alone:
>
> ThisSphere
There's several ways adding the object to the scene could be handled,
this is one way.
> And so it's difficult to think of doing this for evermore complicated
> things. Am I on the wrong track to believe this way?
Yes. You're assuming you would have to do everything in a much more
complex fashion, this is not the case. The final result could be very
similar to the current POV language in general use.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlink net>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tag povray org>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |