 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree with you!
Nobody should *need* to be able to understand OO in order to write pov scenes,
in it's most basic form it should remain just a "scene description language",
i.e. a list of objects and visual properties of them.
I'm just talking about extending the options available outside of that,
specifically I'm thinking of writing a group of macros in a .inc file to allow
some OO style programming. But even I'm not convinced something like that
/should/ be introduced into the main pov code, my original question was just to
find out if anyone had done it, not to try to suggest it's a good idea ;)
Though structures would be useful.
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote in message
news:4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Dan P wrote:
>
> > After you parse the double-negative, he's actually saying the opposite --
> > that everybody would find it, at very least, interesting.
>
> Not me. It would add another layer of complexity that I don't want to have
> to bother to learn. OO is for programming not a scene description language.
> If I wanted to learn programming I would do that rather than using POV-Ray.
>
> --
> Mr. Flameproof
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:26:39 -0800, "Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom>
wrote:
>Now you're nit picking. Povray is as much like programming as it is, but OO
>would make it more like programming. Stop pretending you didn't know what he
^
... even more ... :-)
>meant!
--
Andreas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
> Not me. It would add another layer of complexity that I don't want to have
> to bother to learn. OO is for programming not a scene description language.
> If I wanted to learn programming I would do that rather than using POV-Ray.
No matter what you say, POV-Ray's SDL is a programming language.
Adding new features to the language does not mean you *must* learn them.
It just means that they are available to those who find them useful.
--
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:403332b3@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> Adding new features to the language does not mean you *must* learn
> them.
> It just means that they are available to those who find them useful.
If I want to read and understand those future OO-scenefiles, I'll have to
learn the new features. "Use" is more than just writing scenes.
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christopher James Huff" <cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
news:cjameshuff-60ACCD.21030117022004@news.povray.org...
> In article <4032b303$1@news.povray.org>,
> Tom Melly <pov### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
>
> > IMHO this comes down to 'pov ain't oo' - I don't think anyone denies
> > that oo capabilities in pov wouldn't be at the very least interesting,
> > but that's not the issue....
>
> Wha...? You're saying you don't think OO capabilities would be useful,
> or even interesting? And that you don't think anyone thinks it would be
> interesting? It's sure spawned a lot of discussion for something so
> utterly uninteresting...
Heh - even I can't work out wot I rote...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net...
>
As I implied ('capabilities'), and as Warp made explicit, the ideal would be an
expansion of the existing syntax rather than a replacement. However, ingo raises
a semi-valid point....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"ingo" <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:Xns94937169A2BACseed7@news.povray.org...
> in news:403332b3@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
>
> > Adding new features to the language does not mean you *must* learn
> > them.
> > It just means that they are available to those who find them useful.
>
> If I want to read and understand those future OO-scenefiles, I'll have to
> learn the new features. "Use" is more than just writing scenes.
>
Wouldn't this be a valid objection to introducing any new feature in pov?
Besides, OO sdl would - at least in my imagination - have few surprises in
comparison to the current sdl syntax....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Melly wrote:
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> news:4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net...
>
>
> As I implied ('capabilities'), and as Warp made explicit, the ideal would be an
> expansion of the existing syntax rather than a replacement. However, ingo raises
> a semi-valid point....
Well, IMHO the whole idea of OO is to make the source more readable and thus
more maintainable. If Ingo's point is even a little bit valid I think OO
is better left out. At this point I cannot judge very well because I
still have no good perception of how an OOPOV would look, but perhaps
that is because I did not play anough with macros. FYI I do not program
in C++ or java, but I try to program as much in OO-style as I can in
Matlab. So in general I am in favor of OO.
Andrel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4032CB5A.9277B9BA@pacbell.net>, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet>
wrote:
> Not me. It would add another layer of complexity that I don't want to have
> to bother to learn. OO is for programming not a scene description language.
> If I wanted to learn programming I would do that rather than using POV-Ray.
You only say that because you don't know what it would add. It would not
add complexity, it would greatly simplify many things.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <Xns94937169A2BACseed7@news.povray.org>,
ingo <ing### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> If I want to read and understand those future OO-scenefiles, I'll have to
> learn the new features. "Use" is more than just writing scenes.
And reading and understanding the ugly, complex hacks used to work
around the lack of object oriented features would be easier?
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: <chr### [at] tagpovrayorg>
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
