Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jun 2010 03:13:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
32675 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Joshua Delahunty wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.ray, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > > In lugnet.cad.ray, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> > > > > At http://www.hassings.dk/l3/l3p14beta.html#version14 I find no directions on
> > > > > how to use less impopular keywords. Is there a more recommended syntax, or
> > > > > should I just ignore the warnings since the code still works just as expected?
> > > >
> > > > You should just ignore these warnings.
> > > > They are meant to discourage further use,
> > > > but they will still work.
> > >
> > > Wait a minute! I use L3P and inlined POV-Ray code almost daily--don't tell me
> > > that this is being phased out?
> > >
> > > Aaaaagghh!
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave!
> >
> > Let's initiate a list of signatures at once! :)
> >
> > /Tore
> > (Another almost daily inlined POV-code user)
>
> A highly unpopular and controversial issue with LDRAW.
>
> You'd best create a working group to study the impact of creating your own
> sub-committee of an existing LDRAW committee for the purposes of resurrecting
> challenges to an asked-and-answered bit of LDRAW Law.
As I understand it, nearly all of the fuss was about the fact that POV-Ray is a
whole separate organism not under the control of the LSC, so any "official"
additions to the LDraw library that contained inlined POV-Ray code would be at
the mercy of that separate organism.
Generally a fair objection, I admit, and I don't dispute the authority of the
LSC to make that decision. However, if the inlined code in question pertains to
basic shapes and surfaces, then there seems little risk that the good people @
Persistence of Vision will make changes to that basic and fundamental coding
protocal any time soon.
However, certain functions like radiosity are somewhat volatile, so these should
definitely be avoided when inlining code. I believe that the "intersection"
function has also been rendered obsolete, and this demonstrates that even
seemingly basic operations could change down the line.
Even so, the comparatively small risk associated with such changes is worth the
payoff IMO. If you have to write code for, say, a dome that represents 35% of a
sphere, I'm not aware of a great way to do this in LDraw such that the finished
product will be smooth and round rather than bumpy and faceted.
If there is indeed a great and official workaround, I'd love to hear (and
incorporate) it!
Again, I'm not saying that the LSC should allow inlined POV-Ray code in the
formal parts libary, but I can pretty much guarantee that I'll continue to use
it in the parts that *I* author because of the greatly superior results that it
allows.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) As far I understand it, the main reason the LSC don't want POV code in the parts themselves is because of the 'pollution'. Because another person might want blender code or maybe even something (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) A highly unpopular and controversial issue with LDRAW. You'd best create a working group to study the impact of creating your own sub-committee of an existing LDRAW committee for the purposes of resurrecting challenges to an asked-and-answered (...) (14 years ago, 28-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
