clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 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.
why not simply add a shader option to the texture block, and use something like
OSL for the shader language?
Post a reply to this message