The #declare / #local, deprecated sub-feature does not function when the 
reference to the identifiers is done via the 'global' and 'local' pseudo 
dictionaries(*).

Aside:
With the povr fork, I'm considering dropping the 'deprecated' feature 
given the extremely light usage in official POV-Ray releases. There is 
no use in povr itself today.

It is an expensive parse time feature given the benefit. Every reference 
to identifiers during parsing - even with 'once' use - must be checked 
to support it.

We can issue deprecated messages without it for existing scene 
description language implemented features, only once, when they are 
included or defined, but not on actual usage of the SDL feature.

And... There look to be bug(s?) with the deprecated feature itself which 
I'll post about at a later time.

(*) As mentioned in an earlier post to beta-test, I don't presently 
recommend any pseudo dictionary use in v3.8 beyond the #macro local. 
testing for optional parameter defaults.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> The #declare / #local, deprecated sub-feature does not function when the
> reference to the identifiers is done via the 'global' and 'local' pseudo
> dictionaries(*).
> ...
> (*) As mentioned in an earlier post to beta-test, I don't presently
> recommend any pseudo dictionary use in v3.8 beyond the #macro local.
> testing for optional parameter defaults.

for instance, if I have 'A.pov' and 'A.inc', and the latter '#include's another
file ('filed.inc', in this particular situation), I have taken to writing in
'A.inc' eg:

#ifdef (global.fild_workingDir)
  ...
#end

would dropping the 'global' make an actual difference ?


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/22/23 15:39, jr wrote:
> would dropping the 'global' make an actual difference ?

Sure. Whether the difference matters depends on - stuff.

(Above a MUCH shorter response than I tried to send a while ago from 
thunderbird. A response sitting in my sent folder, but thus far it has 
not shown up elsewhere? I this doesn't work, I'll ping you via email 
directly)

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/23/23 09:43, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 10/22/23 15:39, jr wrote:
>> would dropping the 'global' make an actual difference ?
> 
> Sure. Whether the difference matters depends on - stuff.
> 
> (Above a MUCH shorter response than I tried to send a while ago from 
> thunderbird. A response sitting in my sent folder, but thus far it has 
> not shown up elsewhere? I this doesn't work, I'll ping you via email 
> directly)
> 
> Bill P.

That showed up and I tried again to send my long response. It again is 
in my sent folder, but otherwise again went poof... :-(

Suppose beyond my thinking while writing it, my ramblings don't rate 
much for general value in any case.

I'm going to work on other stuff for a while. :-)

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/10/2023 00:59, William F Pokorny wrote:
> That showed up and I tried again to send my long response. It again is in my sent
folder, but otherwise again went poof... :-(

The spam filter ate it (and the previous). I'll try to work out what's triggering it
and either remove that factor or find a way to exempt your posts.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

On 10/24/23 00:25, Chris Cason wrote:
> On 24/10/2023 00:59, William F Pokorny wrote:
>> That showed up and I tried again to send my long response. It again is 
>> in my sent folder, but otherwise again went poof... :-(
> 
> The spam filter ate it (and the previous). I'll try to work out what's 
> triggering it and either remove that factor or find a way to exempt your 
> posts.
> 
> -- Chris
> 
Thank you Chris.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/24/23 00:25, Chris Cason wrote:
> On 24/10/2023 00:59, William F Pokorny wrote:
>> That showed up and I tried again to send my long response. It again is 
>> in my sent folder, but otherwise again went poof... :-(
> 
> The spam filter ate it (and the previous). I'll try to work out what's 
> triggering it and either remove that factor or find a way to exempt your 
> posts.
> 
> -- Chris
> 

I had the thought maybe my glitching head had dropped a 'bad word' into 
my rejected post. I carefully read what I'd sent again, but it all 
looked innocuous.

Made some coffee, took a few sips, and I thought to search on my 
playpen's fork name. Dang, a gazillion adult sites pop up. When I picked 
that name I saw only a few unimportant collisions on searching the web.

Well _____(a). I guess, moving to another fork name is now at the top of 
my to do list no matter the reason the spam filter tripped. What a pain.

Something obscure, z_4_  ?

Except, jr, wouldn't like having to use the shift key...

Bill P.

(a) - That was a bad word.

Post a reply to this message

Don’t worry about renaming it yet, I need to run it through the spam filter
manually and find what specifically is tripping it up. Will do that today.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/25/23 09:30, Chris Cason wrote:
> Don’t worry about renaming it yet, I need to run it through the spam filter
> manually and find what specifically is tripping it up. Will do that today.
> 

Chris,

FYI. I've started the work to rename the fork. I want to get away from 
from the adult site name in any case.

Once done, I'll try a post to povray.test of the original text, except 
with my new fork name. If it still gets rejected, I can find the issue 
myself with repeated posts to p.test. You can take this work item off 
your plate - except for any eventual spam filter update, should one 
still be needed.

Bill P.

Post a reply to this message

On 28/10/2023 22:04, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 10/25/23 09:30, Chris Cason wrote:
>> Don’t worry about renaming it yet, I need to run it through the spam filter
>> manually and find what specifically is tripping it up. Will do that today.
>>
> 
> Chris,
> 
> FYI. I've started the work to rename the fork. I want to get away from from the
adult site name in any case.
> 
> Once done, I'll try a post to povray.test of the original text, except with my new
fork name. If it still gets rejected, I can find the issue myself with repeated posts
to p.test. You can take this work item off your plate - except for any eventual spam
filter update, should one still be needed.

ok. sorry didn't get to fix it, I've been clobbered with a particularly nasty variant
of the flu going around Australia right now. normally only takes me a few days to get
over a flu, approaching 10 days now.

Post a reply to this message