"Anders K." wrote:
> 
> > While I think the usage of .pov is unquestionnable, I never
> > liked too much .inc, which is way too generic. .mcr is not
> > much better. I think .pvi and .pvm would be better (or .povi
> > and .povm), because they'd be more unique to POV.
> 
> Also, there is the completely generic .ini extension.

This one is not so easy.

There is an unformulated "ini" standard. Ini files can be
broken into sections (lines with [foobar]), and they are made
of pairs of keyword=value, with lines commented (iirc) with a
semicolon.

POV follows this convention (although it authorizes command-
line options to be included as well, which is not standard),
so imho it can use the .ini extension.

Now, of course, comes the problem of syntax highlighting.
While any program can highlight .ini files (just highlighting
[sections] and ;comments), it's better if it knows the
authorized keywords so the user can quickly see typos, which
is the aim of syntax highlighting.

But in the case of .ini files, I think the best to do is to
use a modeline (emacs and vim allow that), that is a special
comment at the beginning or end of file.

Or use .pvc/.povc (POV config).

NOTE: I know of course that the user can already name the
files as (s)he wishes. What I'm talking about is default.
And again, sorry, I shouldn't have brought this .pvi, .pvm
issue here.

-- 
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
 Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry wrote:
> 
> While they are at it, the scenes that contain files with ".c1", ".c2",
> ".c3", ".sph", and ".tri" extensions should probably be reworked to
> make those all ".inc" extensions.

Or perhaps .c1.inc, .c2.inc, etc. The extensions have a meaning
that should perhaps be preserved this way.

-- 
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
 Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs

Post a reply to this message

Adrien Beau wrote:
> 
> Glen Berry wrote:
> >
> > While they are at it, the scenes that contain files with ".c1", ".c2",
> > ".c3", ".sph", and ".tri" extensions should probably be reworked to
> > make those all ".inc" extensions.
> 
> Or perhaps .c1.inc, .c2.inc, etc. The extensions have a meaning
> that should perhaps be preserved this way.
> 
	
	double-dot extensions are not make-friendly, I guess.

-- 
Thierry, (42++)++

Post a reply to this message

"Thierry B." <oul### [at] chezcom> wrote in message
news:3BA62934.51C07863@chez.com...
> Adrien Beau wrote:
> >
> > Glen Berry wrote:
> > >
> > > While they are at it, the scenes that contain files with ".c1", ".c2",
> > > ".c3", ".sph", and ".tri" extensions should probably be reworked to
> > > make those all ".inc" extensions.
> >
> > Or perhaps .c1.inc, .c2.inc, etc. The extensions have a meaning
> > that should perhaps be preserved this way.
> >
>
> double-dot extensions are not make-friendly, I guess.

The only ones I know of are those for the teapot and chess piece mesh
scenes.
Obviously unconventional file naming is not very intuitive when POV-Ray
can't load a file by only looking at its main name alone.  But you can kind
of see where people would try to use one particular main name and apply
varied extensions for the includes, for example.

I once tried hacking (I'm not compiler savvy at all) the source code
directly to have ini be inp, among other things too, and renaming every
external file I encountered to accomodate that change was ridiculous.  I
quickly returned to accepting what POV-Ray already did and haven't messed
with it since.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message

"Adrien Beau" <adr### [at] sycomorefr> wrote in message
news:3BA609F6.AC6AFD7C@sycomore.fr...
> Glen Berry wrote:
> >
> > While they are at it, the scenes that contain files with ".c1", ".c2",
> > ".c3", ".sph", and ".tri" extensions should probably be reworked to
> > make those all ".inc" extensions.
>
> Or perhaps .c1.inc, .c2.inc, etc. The extensions have a meaning
> that should perhaps be preserved this way.
>
> --
> Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
>  Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs

Question:  Is POV still supported on systems that do not support LFNs or
doubledots or anything like that?  5 years ago, the question would have been
ridiculous, but what about now?

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: Question:  Is POV still supported on systems that do not support LFNs or
: doubledots or anything like that?

  How many systems like that do you know?

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3ba70604@news.povray.org...
> Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> : Question:  Is POV still supported on systems that do not support LFNs or
> : doubledots or anything like that?
>
>   How many systems like that do you know?

DOS, for one.  Not sure about Amigas (haven't used one since '90).  Most
(all?) unices, current versions and Windows and MacOS all support LFN, so I
was just curious :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: DOS, for one.

  That's the point. *One* system. An a very old one which people seldom use
anymore (alone; I'm not talking about Windows dos prompt).

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> : Question:  Is POV still supported on systems that do not support LFNs or
> : doubledots or anything like that?
> 
>   How many systems like that do you know?

Apart from DOS, I could cite OpenVMS which has a 40.40 format.
Yes, only one dot is allowed. However, I have observed that most
persons who port Unix programs to VMS turn the eventual other
dots to underscores.

So VMS could have foobar_tri.inc instead of foobar.tri.inc.
Or all the POV-Ray archives could use foobar_tri.inc, and
nobody would be hurt.

-- 
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
 Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs

Post a reply to this message

"Thierry B." wrote:
> 
>         double-dot extensions are not make-friendly, I guess.

I'm skeptical. Are you sure of that?

-- 
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
 Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs

Post a reply to this message