Am 02.08.2015 um 00:43 schrieb Warp:

> 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)?

Yup.

Note that my goal is for the language /per se/ to have a very simple 
syntax, and make it pretty much oblivious to rendering, except for 
providing a few special native data types like 3D vectors and colours. 
It'll be up to a bunch of predefined classes to fill it with raytracing 
life in its scene description role. Such a language should be generic 
enough to also be suited for the shader description role, so it would be 
rather pointless and user-unfriendly to devise yet another language for 
that purpose.

Post a reply to this message