 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I tried to do this:
pigment {function {f_bozo(x, y + frame_number, z)}}
...and got an error message. Seems POV-Ray doesn't think "frame_number"
is a valid token. (Was expecting ",".)
Anybody wanna take a guess why this is happening? I just want the
function to change slightly each frame...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wasn't it Orchid XP v2 who wrote:
>I tried to do this:
>
>pigment {function {f_bozo(x, y + frame_number, z)}}
>
>...and got an error message. Seems POV-Ray doesn't think "frame_number"
>is a valid token. (Was expecting ",".)
>
>Anybody wanna take a guess why this is happening? I just want the
>function to change slightly each frame...
This works:
#declare F = frame_number;
...
pigment {function {f_bozo(x, y + F, z)}}
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>Anybody wanna take a guess why this is happening? I just want the
>>function to change slightly each frame...
>
>
> This works:
>
> #declare F = frame_number;
> ...
> pigment {function {f_bozo(x, y + F, z)}}
Interesting...
Oh well, thanks for that!
(I imagine if you dig through the innards of the parser there's probably
a perfectly good reason why it does this. LOL!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v2 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> (I imagine if you dig through the innards of the parser there's probably
> a perfectly good reason why it does this. LOL!)
I suppose that the reason is simply that the keyword in question
has not been added to the user-defined-function universe, so when
the user-defined-function parser sees it, it thinks "oh, an unknown
name, let's see if there's an identifier of that name in in the SDL
universe -> no -> error".
The SDL namespace and the user-defined-function namespace being two
completely different and separate universes causes indeed lots of
confusion. I have actually thought about writing a short article
about that at the povQ&T page.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>(I imagine if you dig through the innards of the parser there's probably
>>a perfectly good reason why it does this. LOL!)
>
>
> I suppose that the reason is simply that the keyword in question
> has not been added to the user-defined-function universe,
>
> The SDL namespace and the user-defined-function namespace being two
> completely different and separate universes
Yeah, I had thought it would be something like that...
> causes indeed lots of
> confusion. I have actually thought about writing a short article
> about that at the povQ&T page.
Possibly... It makes sense when you know how it works.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
