On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:01:38 -0500, andrel linnenbank wrote:

> I very much prefer the hat notation too. Also I was playing with
> isosurfaces today and in 6.5.4.2 was the simple exapmple:
> 
> isosurface{
>  function{ x^2+y^2+z^2}
> }
> 
> which we apparently now have to encode as
> 
>  function{ pow(x,2)+pow(y,2)+pow(z,2) }

function {x*x + y*y + z*z}
works fine and isn't any longer (except for whitespace). I do prefer the
hat notation though...I would have preferred it if the complaints about
precedence had just been ignored.


> As a further note, precedence is always a difficult thing. There are
> even variations between countries. In Holland the precedence rules are
> that the order for binary operators is: ^ * / + - and none has the same
> precedence. So 2*4/2 is 4 not 1 When something unexpected happens I
> always check precedence and use superfluous parenthesis, just to be sure

How could that equal 1? I don't see any precedence rule that could produce
that result...it either comes out to 8/2 or 2*2. Or +-: 2 + 3 - 5 = 0
whether you do the addition or subtraction first.


-- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
POV-Ray TAG e-mail: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
WWW: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/

Post a reply to this message