 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.09.2018 um 05:34 schrieb Kenneth:
>>>> I'm still just a little confused about this: I have an older 3.7.1 beta
>>>> release...
>>>> 3.7.1-beta.4+msvc14.win64
>
>>> - How do you install it into "an existing 3.7.0 [installation]"?
>>
>
> Well, from looking at Github, I see that beta4 is/was indeed a 'complete'
> install, not a simple drop-in 'pvengine'. I have no idea how I actually obtained
> *just* the engine itself-- I must have downloaded and installed the complete
> package, then 'extracted' the engine file to use (with 3.7.0) while discarding
> the rest, in some fit of madness or ignorance. :-O But it works, strangely (or
> *appears* to!)
I've just taken a few minutes to dig a bit deeper, and it seems that
binaries can be used in three different modes:
(A) Stand-alone - in this mode, the binary maintains its own registry
entry and has its own support files.
(B) Piggyback - in this mode, the binary shares both the registry entry
and support files with another binary.
(C) Semi-Piggyback - in this mode, the binary maintains its own registry
entry but shares support files with another binary.
Only modes (A) and (B) are really intentional, with (A) being the
intended mode if the binaries are from different "generations" or one is
a beta and the other isn't, and (B) being the intended mode for alpha
releases.
Mode (C) _can_ indeed be achieved by dropping a "raw" binary into an
existing installation that differs in "generation" and/or beta status,
_if_ no version of same "generation" and beta status is currently
installed. (If such a version is installed, the dropped-in binary will
enter into mode (B) with that version, despite the binary being located
elsewhere.)
There is one very big caveat to this however: This will totally screw up
any subsequent proper installation of the dropped-in version (or any
other version of same generation and beta status); such a subsequent
installation will fail to enter mode (A), and continue to share support
files with that other installation, while its own support files will lie
dormant.
Uninstalling and re-installing would probably solve this problem.
Another thing worth mentioning in this context is that the location of a
binary doesn't matter at all - except in the process to enter mode (C).
During normal operation, a binary will find its support files through
the registry, not through its own location.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
> I've just taken a few minutes to dig a bit deeper, and it seems that
> binaries can be used in three different modes:
> ....
>
> There is one very big caveat to this however: This will totally screw up
> any subsequent proper installation of the dropped-in version (or any
> other version of same generation and beta status...
To be safe, I'll re-install a clean v3.7.0 (and discard the offending beta4.) I
can only hope that I haven't screwed up my registry in some way.
Thanks for the detective work.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.09.2018 um 17:03 schrieb Kenneth:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've just taken a few minutes to dig a bit deeper, and it seems that
>> binaries can be used in three different modes:
>> ....
>>
>> There is one very big caveat to this however: This will totally screw up
>> any subsequent proper installation of the dropped-in version (or any
>> other version of same generation and beta status...
>
> To be safe, I'll re-install a clean v3.7.0 (and discard the offending beta4.) I
> can only hope that I haven't screwed up my registry in some way.
Just for the records: It's the v3.7-beta installation you've screwed up,
not the v3.7 proper installation. There /may/ have been interference
from the beta, but I doubt it.
And re-installing v3.7 proper won't clean up the v3.7-beta detritus. So
should you ever again install a v3.7-beta, even if you use the proper
installer, and even if you now un-install and re-install v3.7.0, that
beta will /again/ interfere with the v3.7.0.
A proper install of the /beta/, followed by an uninstall of it, should
be the way to clean up this issue.
Or run "regedit" and throw out `HKCU\Software\POV-Ray\v3.7-beta` and/or
`HKLM/Software/POV-Ray/v3.7-beta`.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
> Am 30.08.2018 um 21:38 schrieb jr:
> > ... the keys of a dictionary? ...
another question regarding dictionaries.
I try (in a to be included file):
#local A = array [4] { ... };
...
#declare D = dictionary {
.arr: (A),
...
};
and get a "Parse Error: Expected 'numeric expression', array identifier found
instead"
when I try
.arr: A,
I get a parse error in the using scene: "Attempt to access uninitialised
dictionary element". (3.8.0-alpha.9606898) can arrays not be used in a
dictionary?
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 02.09.2018 um 17:03 schrieb Kenneth:
>
> Just for the records: It's the v3.7-beta installation you've screwed up,
> not the v3.7 proper installation...
>
> A proper install of the /beta/, followed by an uninstall of it, should
> be the way to clean up this issue.
>
> Or run "regedit" and throw out `HKCU\Software\POV-Ray\v3.7-beta` and/or
> `HKLM/Software/POV-Ray/v3.7-beta`.
Thanks a bunch for the clarification! I may go both routes, if I can get up the
gumption to monkey around with the registry ;-)
Seems that I did something really dumb... :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 02.09.2018 um 17:03 schrieb Kenneth:
>
> >
> > Just for the records: It's the v3.7-beta installation you've screwed up,
> > not the v3.7 proper installation...
> >
> > A proper install of the /beta/, followed by an uninstall of it, should
> > be the way to clean up this issue.
> >
> > Or run "regedit" and throw out `HKCU\Software\POV-Ray\v3.7-beta` and/or
> > `HKLM/Software/POV-Ray/v3.7-beta`.
>
> I may go both routes...
Just to follow up:
It all worked out very smoothly.
In case you're curious...
First thing I did was to take a look at the registry; there was lots of detritus
in HKCU\Software\POV-Ray\ , including some *old* stuff from a previous defunct
hard drive (labeled a "G" drive, for reasons that I understand but are hard to
explain, ha.) No POV-Ray entry at all at HKLM\Software\.
Leaving that stuff alone for the time being, I took a 'brute-force' approach and
un-installed BOTH (all) my current versions of POV, including any and all
app-specific folders. Going back to the registry, I then deleted the *entire*
POV-Ray 'folder', instead of picking and choosing individual entries in it. Then
rebooted. Taking another look there, it was nice and clean re: POV-ray, no trace
of it remaining (that I know of.)
I did download and install beta 4 at this point, for curiosity's sake; then
uninstalled it, and re-cleaned the registry. Then another reboot.
Then I re-downloaded and installed v3.7.0, the newest 3.8 'alpha' engine, and
3.7.1 beta 9, in that order. Just like my previous set-up. After a little
updating of POVRAY.INI and quickres.ini, everything works fine now.
No vestige of beta 4 remains!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Just to follow up:
https://i.imgur.com/cAFOwQ3.gif
https://g1rm.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/akira2018.gif?w=584
https://media.giphy.com/media/uRKhHCvfOdUmQ/giphy.gif
It's the only way to be sure.
#NeverPissOffKenneth
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> > Just to follow up:
>
> https://i.imgur.com/cAFOwQ3.gif
> https://g1rm.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/akira2018.gif?w=584
> https://media.giphy.com/media/uRKhHCvfOdUmQ/giphy.gif
>
> It's the only way to be sure.
>
> #NeverPissOffKenneth
Funny! Yeah, that's about the way I felt.
....and THEN, I hired three super-sensitive bomb-sniffer dogs, to root out any
remaining beta4 molecules...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.09.2018 um 20:37 schrieb jr:
> I try (in a to be included file):
>
> #local A = array [4] { ... };
>
> ...
>
> #declare D = dictionary {
> .arr: (A),
> ...
> };
>
> and get a "Parse Error: Expected 'numeric expression', array identifier found
> instead"
That's only natural: There is no meaning associated with the expression
`( ARRAY_IDENTIFIER )`.
> when I try
>
> .arr: A,
>
> I get a parse error in the using scene: "Attempt to access uninitialised
> dictionary element". (3.8.0-alpha.9606898) can arrays not be used in a
> dictionary?
Nope - can't confirm with...
... wait, what?! - You're replying to a thread titled "POV-Ray
alpha.9811560" to report a problem you're seeing with alpha.9606898?
Never mind - can't confirm with either of the versions. Not with the
Windows incarnation, nor with the Linux incarnation. So apparently some
information is missing from your story.
- Are you sure you're using genuine original unmodified source code?
- Can you provide a minimal yet complete scene file that exhibits the
problem?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 02.09.2018 um 20:37 schrieb jr:
> > I try (in a to be included file):
> > and get a "Parse Error: ...
>... (3.8.0-alpha.9606898)
> Nope - can't confirm with...
very sorry to have wasted your time with this. when I put together a minimal
example, using only 'foo's and 'bar's, it works. not sure what I did (the array
is now separate), but the fault's all mine.
> ... wait, what?! - You're replying to a thread titled "POV-Ray
> alpha.9811560" to report a problem you're seeing with alpha.9606898?
ill thought out too (the replied to post touched on 'dictionary'), sorry.
noted.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
