 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3BD2CC78.D9A7B8D9@free.fr> , Adrien Beau <adr### [at] free fr>
wrote:
> Right now as you said somewhere earlier,
> the user can "guess" the behaviour. Doh!
???
I have been saying the opposite in each and every post in this thread!!!
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3bd2b433@news.povray.org...
> In article <3bd29f5e@news.povray.org> , "Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk>
> wrote:
>
> > If the user isn't familiar with the error, he can search in the manual for
> > "user error directive" and find out about it there. That's what the
> > documentation is for. It could also be listed in the VFAQ.
> >
> > Granted, right now such a search doesn't give clear results, but that could
> > easily be fixed in the manual.
>
> Please estimate the probability that a user who doesn't know about the
> #error directive (which is in the documentation) will look up the reason for
> an error in the documentation...
>
> Thorsten
>
A person who won't look up errors in the manual also won't read the manual for
all the little things that get asked about in the povray newsgroups all the time
that annoy those of us who do read the manual. The stupid questions get asked,
regardless of why. It doesn't matter if it looks like a POV-Ray error,
something completely different, or not even generate an error at all, just look
"unexpected". I've only been posting on the povray newserver for a few weeks
and already I've quoted the manual three or four times because someone didn't
bother to look at it or do a search.
So... the estimate is that lots of users will ask lots of stupid questions...
regardless of how the program is set up or how the documentation is written.
And regardless of what generates the error.
Yes, the #error command can and/or should be distinguished from a POV-Ray error.
Perhaps something like the following, although from other discussions here, I
understand it may be asking too much:
(if in a macro)
Macro MyMacro generated a user error on line 27 of MyMacros.inc:
Invalid parameters. A must be between 0 and 10.
MyMacro invoked from MyPicture.pov line 58:
object {
MyMacro(10,20,30)<--
User #error directive hit.
(if not in a macro)
MyPicture.pov generated a user error on line 93:
No camera was selected. Please set MyCamera.
#error CamMessage<---
User #error directive hit.
Or something like that. Again, I understand it may not be possible to generate
that trace, but that, I think, would be ideal. Of course, the user generated
error message could be somehow highlited or otherwise marked so it is different
from standard POV-Ray messages.
Michael
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > IMHO there's no need to "camouflage" an #error command to look like a
> > POV-Ray error. Make it as different as you need from internal errors;
>
> Ah, finally an interesting suggestion. This sounds like something that is
> possible to do easily and still avoids the problem of users taking the
> output as a POV-Ray error message.
Well, I'm glad you understand each other now. This would make a lot more
sense than the current behavior.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thorsten Froehlich" wrote:
> Ah, finally an interesting suggestion. This sounds
> like something that is possible to do easily and
> still avoids the problem of users taking the output
> as a POV-Ray error message.
>
> What do other people think?
I'm not sure how it will look, but if it means that we'll be able to direct
formatted strings to the error stream, then by all means use it! That's all
I ever asked for.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rune wrote:
> I'm not sure how it will look, but if it means that we'll be able to direct
> formatted strings to the error stream, then by all means use it! That's all
> I ever asked for.
Let me see if I have this right....
The POV-Team spent a couple of years and went through countless
development versions to come up with a releasable version of
POV-Ray v3.5.
The TAG did alpha testing on no less than 10 alpha versions of
POV-Ray v3.5.
The pre-beta testers had no less than 15 versions to test and
and ask modifications for.
We are now in *public* beta testing at version #6 of what is
supposed to be a *feature locked* version of the program.
And you are still making feature requests?
When will you be satisfied enough to allow the POV-Team to move
on to other things, like v4.0 for example?
This is all rhetorical and no need for you to reply...
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Let me see if I have this right....
>
> The POV-Team spent a couple of years and went through countless
> development versions to come up with a releasable version of
> POV-Ray v3.5.
>
> The TAG did alpha testing on no less than 10 alpha versions of
> POV-Ray v3.5.
>
> The pre-beta testers had no less than 15 versions to test and
> and ask modifications for.
>
> We are now in *public* beta testing at version #6 of what is
> supposed to be a *feature locked* version of the program.
>
> And you are still making feature requests?
That's what it looks like to me... I mean, a program can only reach a
certain level of perfection before it is "final", and people can move on to
work on the next version... I feel we should have had a final by now... How
many months/years of this do we really need? At this rate, we'll never see
4.0... Of course, I might just be overreacting... Ghaa... I've got to go
study... midterms this week...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doh! I reread all this thread, and sorry if my post wasn't
perfect.
Note that
> > Right now as you said somewhere earlier,
> > the user can "guess" the behaviour. Doh!
didn't mean I accused you of being happy with the
current situation!
You said
> As the documentation is not clear what happens
> with the output, it is up to the user interpretation.
which I rewrote my (wrong?) way, from memory.
Anyway, I hope ingo is still reading this one,
because the only thing that needs to be changed
is the documentation, it seems.
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" wrote:
> Let me see if I have this right....
>
> And you are still making feature requests?
It's not a feature request, it's a bug report.
There's a bug *somewhere* but we can't seem to agree whether it's in the
program or in the documentation.
Anyway, the latest development is that in a reply to Warp Thorsten seem
willing to fix the bug, and he asks for our opinions. And then I reply that
I think it's a great idea. And then you complain about it for some reason.
Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
Rune's World: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk (updated June 26)
POV-Ray Users: http://rsj.mobilixnet.dk/povrayusers/
POV-Ray Webring: http://webring.povray.co.uk
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
#macro verboseFatal(stString)
#warning stString
#error ""
#end
verboseFatal("\n\nA Simple Solution ?\n\n")
// Povingly ,
// Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> #macro verboseFatal(stString)
> #warning stString
> #error ""
> #end
>
> verboseFatal("\n\nA Simple Solution ?\n\n")
File: C:\Docs\pov\test3.pov Line: 3
#warning stString
#error "" <----ERROR
Parse Error: User error directive hit.
Returned from renderer with error status.
Very helpful... BTW, #debug stString doesn't work either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
