On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 15:49:24 -0500, Chris Huff wrote:
>I've recently figured out how to declare things, so I'll probably make 
>an attempt at this feature, it shouldn't be too difficult. The only 

Be careful.  There are some gotchas with identifiers that I just found 
whilst gallivanting through the code.

>problem is that the "pattern" keyword is already used, but it's current 

This doesn't preclude your reusing it in a different context.

>use is pretty unintuitive. (The "pattern" image type, which creates an 
>image from a pigment..."pigment_image" would be a better choice, in my 
>opinion. I don't think changing it would cause a lot of trouble...)

Originally it was to have taken a pattern as argument.  I don't remember
now why it wasn't written to do so, but I suspect it had something to do
with transforms and other warps not being usable at that level, or with
things like pigment_map and average that aren't strictly patterns.  Maybe
I should keep a diary of these things.

Better might be to just get rid of it altogether, since there are now 
lots of better ways of doing most of what it can do.  Not likely to
happen now, though, for hysterical raisins.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message