POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.documentation.inbuilt : Not a v3.8 feature Server Time
25 Oct 2021 19:24:12 EDT (-0400)
  Not a v3.8 feature (Message 1 to 3 of 3)  
From: clipka
Subject: Not a v3.8 feature
Date: 1 Jul 2021 15:26:23
Message: <60de16df$1@news.povray.org>
In the section on new v3.8 features, the docs on the Wiki claim that:

     Identifiers are no longer limited to just 40 characters in length


In a sense, that is totally true: In v3.8, identifiers are not limited 
to just 40 characters in length.

However, the 40 character limit for identifiers had already been dropped 
much earlier, at least before v3.6.2. Somehow it had just stayed in the 
docs in a few places, up to (and including) v3.7.


Post a reply to this message

From: Mr
Subject: Re: Not a v3.8 feature
Date: 2 Jul 2021 17:05:00
Message: <web.60df7e6d72d7a1986adeaecb3f378f2@news.povray.org>
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> In the section on new v3.8 features, the docs on the Wiki claim that:
>
>      Identifiers are no longer limited to just 40 characters in length
>
>
> In a sense, that is totally true: In v3.8, identifiers are not limited
> to just 40 characters in length.
>
> However, the 40 character limit for identifiers had already been dropped
> much earlier, at least before v3.6.2. Somehow it had just stayed in the
> docs in a few places, up to (and including) v3.7.

Hi,
duly noted and corrected in the eight or so places that came up from the wiki
search. let me know if the specific one you saw it In has not been amended yet.


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Not a v3.8 feature
Date: 3 Jul 2021 02:35:39
Message: <60e0053b$1@news.povray.org>
Am 02.07.2021 um 23:00 schrieb Mr:

>> However, the 40 character limit for identifiers had already been dropped
>> much earlier, at least before v3.6.2. Somehow it had just stayed in the
>> docs in a few places, up to (and including) v3.7.
> 
> Hi,
> duly noted and corrected in the eight or so places that came up from the wiki
> search. let me know if the specific one you saw it In has not been amended yet.

Thanks for taking care of this; however:

- I highly doubt v3.6.2 was the actual version in which it was changed; 
it was just the earliest version which I tested it with.

- Does it really make sense to have this information in a section titled 
"Version 3.8" and starting with "These changes [...] pertain to the 
version 3.8 release"?

If it should remain there, I would argue to put it in a separate 
sub-section thereof, specifically for belated changes to the docs. 
Something dedicated to the topic of, "Things that may be new to you, but 
are actually totally old, and just hadn't made it into the 
documentationm until now".


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2021 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.