clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I'm well aware of your wish for this road to be taken, and while it's
> currently invisible in the SDL, under the hood things are already moving
> in that direction (your past posts have been quite inspirational in this
> respect). More and more portions of the code get clearly delineated from
> each other, modularized, and shoved into well-defined polymorphic
> classes - which will make it a whole lot easier to plug in user-defined
I'm glad to hear that.
> However, the user-supplied code portion of the scheme - and actually any
> user-supplied code - /will/ have to wait for the parser rewrite:
> User-supplied code needs /some/ sufficiently expressive syntax, a parser
> for that, and a sufficiently powerful VM to run on - and I guess we
> agree that it makes perfect sense to make that identical to the new
> syntax, parser and VM for the general scene description.
Do you mean that the "shader" code ought to have identical syntax to
everything else in the input language (rather than them being essentially
two separate and independent languages, one inside the other, like the
current SDL and the user-defined functions are now)?
Post a reply to this message