Am 04.08.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> 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.
> OTOH the "shader" part has to, by necessity, be more limited than the
> generic part of the language. It wouldn't make sense, for example, to
> be able to create new objects into the scene while evaluating, for
> example, the color of a reflected ray. That would mess up things quite
> badly, I think.
That's part of the "fill it with raytracing life" thing: To add geometry
to the scene, you'd invoke particular classes (such as a "sphere" class,
a "box" class, and so on), which just won't be available in shaders.
Post a reply to this message