 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A pov file in latest UberPOV containing e.g. x+y+z or max.z shows the
z as a black parameter instead of the violet shown by x or y.
It does not seem to influence parsing or rendering though.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.09.2016 um 14:08 schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> A pov file in latest UberPOV containing e.g. x+y+z or max.z shows the
> z as a black parameter instead of the violet shown by x or y.
Given how many branches I'm currently juggling in parallel, I wish
people would be more precise about that "latest" version they're using ;)
I tend to presume you're talking about one of the
1.37.1.1-alpha.8767927+av5 binaries for Windows.
Unfortunately that version doesn't come with a theory attached as to
what might be going wrong there. Although it almost certainly has to do
with the fact that the "Z_TOKEN" is the very last entry in the list of
all reserved words.
> It does not seem to influence parsing or rendering though.
I wouldn't be so sure about that just yet; not until you have thoroughly
tested it both _inside_ and _outside_ user-defined functions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.09.2016 um 17:33 schrieb clipka:
> Unfortunately that version doesn't come with a theory attached as to
> what might be going wrong there. Although it almost certainly has to do
> with the fact that the "Z_TOKEN" is the very last entry in the list of
> all reserved words.
Found the culprit. Apparently there was some disagreement between the
GUI and the parser whether the "#persistent" feature should be enabled,
causing them to come up with different values for the length of the list
of reserved words. While the parser actually compiled 595 entries into
the list, the GUI was thoroughly convinced it had to retrieve only 594
entries, and thus failed to retrieve the last entry.
Coincidently, when I read your post I was just about to wrap up some
slight change to the reserved words mechanism, with the intention to
make it easier to maintain. It turns out that the way I designed it, the
modified mechanism would have been even _less_ robust against this
particular case; so you've just prevented me from submitting
ill-conceived code ;)
I think I'll leave this unfixed in UberPOV for now, as it doesn't do any
real harm, and wait until that mentioned change (in a more robust
variant) trickles in from official POV-Ray.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-9-2016 18:04, clipka wrote:
> Coincidently, when I read your post I was just about to wrap up some
> slight change to the reserved words mechanism, with the intention to
> make it easier to maintain. It turns out that the way I designed it, the
> modified mechanism would have been even _less_ robust against this
> particular case; so you've just prevented me from submitting
> ill-conceived code ;)
>
>
> I think I'll leave this unfixed in UberPOV for now, as it doesn't do any
> real harm, and wait until that mentioned change (in a more robust
> variant) trickles in from official POV-Ray.
>
Excellent! Glad to be of help ;-)
In future, I shall point to the correct version number as requested. I
have been sadly remiss in the matter. :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
