|
|
"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
perhaps a new version 2 of the macro could (should?)
> be added to the POV-Ray/povr distributions, putting the user "in charge". eg:
A "new version 2" should handle it all in memory, with no requirement for
write-to-disk.
Some other similar function simply to be able to access identifier values with
their text names would be useful.
#local _vector = evaluate_id ("myVector");
Identifying the type/cast of the variable would be great too, as well as some
internal identifier number (for use in loops, arrays, etc).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 9/28/20 1:16 PM, Bald Eagle wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> perhaps a new version 2 of the macro could (should?)
>> be added to the POV-Ray/povr distributions, putting the user "in charge". eg:
>
> A "new version 2" should handle it all in memory, with no requirement for
> write-to-disk.
>
> Some other similar function simply to be able to access identifier values with
> their text names would be useful.
> #local _vector = evaluate_id ("myVector");
>
> Identifying the type/cast of the variable would be great too, as well as some
> internal identifier number (for use in loops, arrays, etc).
>
>
Jr and Bill, good ideas.
I updated my povr version so it accepts an optional argument for the
file name. This forces users to at least think about it because they
must at least add a comma given how the optional argument feature works
as in:
Parse_String("THING1",)
but hopefully what they'll do is use something like:
Parse_String("THING1","/tmp/Scene22_wibblyWobbly_parse_stringyWingy")
and if /tmp is a ramdisk as it is on my system, it speeds up the
operation considerably.
Something future thing all in memory better, but someday...
With respect to evaluate_id unsure. If you are just an ID to and ID you
can do this today:
#declare THING1 = 0.111;
#declare THING2 = THING1;
If want to do this with a string you can use:
#declare THING2 = Parse_String("THING1",);
Getting the internal type could be done I guess. A number too. But with
both these and the latter more than the former - it would start to bind
how and what changes could be made within the parser code. Down the list
I think.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|