On 1/31/21 12:44 AM, William F Pokorny wrote:
> On 1/30/21 1:46 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> If the expression has 1 or 2 terms (on entry), it will be reported as
>> invalid (and that is good).
>> If the expression has 3 or more terms (on entry), Greyscale is fine, and
>> result can be provided.
>> That was my 0.02c !
Finally got some sleep & starting my first cup. I woke up this morning
thinking if .blue (i=pBLUE) works with all the expressions passed, .grey
using (i=pBlue=2) must too. I'm going to change to something essentially
your version in:
The test cases I've created (only 16) are clean with the code above. The
check can only fail if there was a reason for *this=1 - and then we'd
know what it is.
Thanks again for the review!
P.S. In my first response I started to ramble about what I saw in the
Greyscale() coding options, but deleted it. My writing tends to reflect
the storm in my head - and in my povr branch I'm eventually deleting all
the code changes related to the start of support for spectral rendering.
For completeness, I'll mention it.
In colour.h, if you search for NUM_COLOUR_CHANNELS, you'll see there is
an implementation of Greyscale() - not the one currently compiled -
which supports a 'channels' number of color channels. I had the thought
this might have been why *Terms was hard coded to 1, but if so .blue
need modification too and don't have it. (As would the .grey
functionality in fncode.cpp ... and expect much more)
Post a reply to this message