In article <385FCAA2.2CF0A7CF@nigels.com>, nig### [at] eisanetau wrote:
>And finally - extensibility.  The POV team are opposed to 
>a binary plug-in architecture on the basis of portability.
>The ability to create a module without having to edit any
>code in the core of POV would be a very nice feature.
>Can we think of POV as a platform proving services to 
>independent modules, rather than relying on a central parser?
>What are the implications for the scene description syntax?


One of the things I thought would be interesting for macros, would be to 
make them look like normal POV syntax. That is, instead of calling 
"makeTree(5,3,1)", call:

makeTree {
   recursion 5
   rotation 3
   translation 1
}

It would make it easier, later on, to decide that the macro would be 
useful to incorporate as faster code within POV, and have syntax issues 
already worked out.

Jerry

Post a reply to this message