In the Docs paragraph: 3.1.2.2.3 Partial Output Options, +Sn and +En 
should respectively be replaced by: +SRn and +ERn

+Sn and +En result in an error message.

+S0.n and +E0.n just do nothing.


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2012 07:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> +Sn and +En result in an error message.
>
> +S0.n and +E0.n just do nothing.
>
>
> Thomas

Hmmm ... I get do nothing both of these no error/warning ... the full 
image renders

Post a reply to this message

On 6-11-2012 15:57, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 07:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> +Sn and +En result in an error message.
>>
>> +S0.n and +E0.n just do nothing.
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Hmmm ... I get do nothing both of these no error/warning ... the full
> image renders

Semantic trouble  :-)

This is what I mean: It should /not/ be the full image. The commands do 
not work. While +SR0.n and +ER0.n work correctly.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 6-11-2012 16:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Semantic trouble  :-)
>
> This is what I mean: It should /not/ be the full image. The commands do
> not work. While +SR0.n and +ER0.n work correctly.
>

I am still not making myself clear enough.

+Sn, +S0.n, +En, +E0.n are /unexisting/ commands which should be removed 
from the list at the start of the paragraph.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2012 09:57 AM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 07:20 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> +Sn and +En result in an error message.
>>
>> +S0.n and +E0.n just do nothing.
>>
>>
>> Thomas
>
> Hmmm ... I get do nothing both of these no error/warning ... the full
> image renders

OK double Hmmmm ... I was trying different combinations of the +sr0.n 
and +er0.n formats and this produces a hard fail:

+sr0.50 +er0.100

POV-Ray Critical Error: Backend worker thread shut down prematurely: 
please re-start POV-Ray.povray: vfepovms.cpp:208: int 
vfe::SysQNode::Send(void*, int): Assertion `m_Sanity == 0xEDFEEFBE' failed.

Well after thinking WTF a did a little RTFM and see that the format I 
used specifies percentage, so now I understand the error of my choice.

This shouldn't have gotten past the parser ... correct?

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2012 10:11 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 6-11-2012 16:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> Semantic trouble  :-)
>>
>> This is what I mean: It should /not/ be the full image. The commands do
>> not work. While +SR0.n and +ER0.n work correctly.
>>
>
> I am still not making myself clear enough.
>
> +Sn, +S0.n, +En, +E0.n are /unexisting/ commands which should be removed
> from the list at the start of the paragraph.
>
> Thomas
>
well at this point I'm not 100% sure ... given what else I've 
discovered. I'm just saying ... is there a chance that those variants 
ARE legit ... parser doesn't seem to care.

Post a reply to this message

On 6-11-2012 16:15, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 11/06/2012 10:11 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 6-11-2012 16:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> Semantic trouble  :-)
>>>
>>> This is what I mean: It should /not/ be the full image. The commands do
>>> not work. While +SR0.n and +ER0.n work correctly.
>>>
>>
>> I am still not making myself clear enough.
>>
>> +Sn, +S0.n, +En, +E0.n are /unexisting/ commands which should be removed
>> from the list at the start of the paragraph.
>>
>> Thomas
>>
> well at this point I'm not 100% sure ... given what else I've
> discovered. I'm just saying ... is there a chance that those variants
> ARE legit ... parser doesn't seem to care.

Well, parser /did/ care for +Sn and +En in my system, but not 
anymore.... However, they do /not/ do their job. The full image is 
rendered instead of the part in-between asked for. Same story for +S0.n 
and +E0.n (percentages).

Also note that +S and +E are /not/ available in the index, while +SR and 
+ER are..

My impression is that they are relicts from the 3.6 version and have 
been deactivated as they are redundant with +SRn and +ERn, respectively 
+SR0.n and +ER0.n

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 11/07/2012 03:59 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 6-11-2012 16:15, James Holsenback wrote:
>> On 11/06/2012 10:11 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 6-11-2012 16:04, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> Semantic trouble  :-)
>>>>
>>>> This is what I mean: It should /not/ be the full image. The commands do
>>>> not work. While +SR0.n and +ER0.n work correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am still not making myself clear enough.
>>>
>>> +Sn, +S0.n, +En, +E0.n are /unexisting/ commands which should be removed
>>> from the list at the start of the paragraph.
>>>
>>> Thomas
>>>
>> well at this point I'm not 100% sure ... given what else I've
>> discovered. I'm just saying ... is there a chance that those variants
>> ARE legit ... parser doesn't seem to care.
>
> Well, parser /did/ care for +Sn and +En in my system, but not
> anymore.... However, they do /not/ do their job. The full image is
> rendered instead of the part in-between asked for. Same story for +S0.n
> and +E0.n (percentages).
>
> Also note that +S and +E are /not/ available in the index, while +SR and
> +ER are..
>
> My impression is that they are relicts from the 3.6 version and have
> been deactivated as they are redundant with +SRn and +ERn, respectively
> +SR0.n and +ER0.n
>
> Thomas
Yeah ... I think you may be correct about some of those variants have 
been disabled ... deprecated can't say for sure, but don't think so, I 
did a quick check of the change log and didn't see anything.

I'll be more than happy to change the docs when we get someone to expand 
on what's legit. You know something else that doesn't seem right is that 
/if/ those variants are deprecated I'd expect some kind of warning ... 
also the ones that are getting through seem to have rather loose 
validations rules.

Interesting find ... I'm anxious to get the straight scoop.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-11-2012 16:19, James Holsenback wrote:

> Interesting find ... I'm anxious to get the straight scoop.

Yes, it seems odd. We anxiously await the enlightened words of the Grand 
Masters  ;-)


Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 07.11.2012 16:39, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> On 7-11-2012 16:19, James Holsenback wrote:
>
>> Interesting find ... I'm anxious to get the straight scoop.
>
> Yes, it seems odd. We anxiously await the enlightened words of the Grand
> Masters  ;-)

Guess what - turns out that the error message for unknown switches 
doesn't work properly.

Post a reply to this message