 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3c8bfd53@news.povray.org> , "Anders K." <and### [at] prostar d2gcom>
wrote:
>> And maybe I missed something, but how many non-computer programming uses
>> of zero-based counting are there?
>
> I wrote a program
So writing a program is a "non-computer programming" use? :-)
> Please remember that I'm not asking you to change anything, only to leave it
> the way it is!
I am not saying it will be changed either!
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:02:06 +0100, "Thorsten Froehlich"
<tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>In article <3c8b7a24$1@news.povray.org> , "Anders K." <and### [at] prostard2gcom>
>wrote:
>
>> This seems like a very arbitrary limitation.
>
>If you take a sequence of pictures, do the call the initial picture in the
>sequence the 0th or the 1st picture?
This all depends on whether you're counting frames or elapsed time.
If your frames are based on elapsed time, it makes a great deal of
sense to number the first one zero (i.e., no time has elapsed yet)...
>
>> Being someone who likes
>> zero-based counting, I use Initial_Frame=0 very often, and it has always
>> worked for me. Are you saying that it isn't going to work in the future?
>
>It hasn't been possible in any 3.5 beta and now after five month and several
>thousand downloads of each of the betas the first person notices - so it is
>correct to conclude that this must be the most important undocumented behavior
>in 3.0 and 3.1!?
>
>Not to mention that it was never documented and the documentation strongly
>recommends to leave Initial_Frame at one...
>
> Thorsten
>
>____________________________________________________
>Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
>e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
>Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:02:06 +0100, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> It hasn't been possible in any 3.5 beta and now after five month and several
> thousand downloads of each of the betas the first person notices - so it is
> correct to conclude that this must be the most important undocumented behavior
> in 3.0 and 3.1!?
So what you're saying is that now that everyone's stopped looking for bugs
and started using the program as normal that if they find any bugs you're
just going to ignore them?
--
sphere{z*5,1pigment{rgb.5}finish{reflection.3specular.5}}box{<-50,-3,-50>
<50,-2,50>pigment{checker/*\__\\__/ * \_\\__*/scale 2}finish{ambient.7}}
light_source/*__\\__\\__\\__\\__\( ~ )\__\\__\\__\\__\\*/{<2,5,1>*4,1}
/*\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\__\~ -/__\\__\\__\\__\\__\\*//* Steve */
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <slr### [at] zero-ppslocaldomain> , Steve
<ste### [at] zeroppsuklinuxnet> wrote:
>> It hasn't been possible in any 3.5 beta and now after five month and several
>> thousand downloads of each of the betas the first person notices - so it is
>> correct to conclude that this must be the most important undocumented
>> behavior in 3.0 and 3.1!?
>
> So what you're saying is that now that everyone's stopped looking for bugs
> and started using the program as normal that if they find any bugs you're
> just going to ignore them?
No, what I wrote does neither say nor imply this but something completely
different. Maybe you should read what I wrote more carefully...
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
