 | | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Since I've contributed exactly two official parts to the LDraw library (neither of them with inlined POV-Ray code), I'm sure that my opinion carries more weight than anyone's on the subject... :) For some time it has been argued that the use (...) (17 years ago, 2-Jul-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Building inequality one sexist stereotype at a time
|
|
I've read with interest the "Building equality one female minifig at a time" thread started by CL Janey. There's some interesting discussion there, though I do wonder if there isn't a motive not quite as noble as building equality in the solutions (...) (17 years ago, 2-Jul-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) I'd _like_ to see a meta-language for basic shapes defined in their primitives (the current naming system would be fine if it was consistent) as that could be used in converter software of all hues. I also realise this isn't likely to happen (...) (17 years ago, 1-Jul-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) At the risk of reigniting this argument, I still hold to the original reasons for disallowing EmPOV: - The POV-RAY SDL is not under the control of the LSC. This means that if the POV-Ray Team decides to depreciate a command (which they have (...) (17 years ago, 1-Jul-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
|
|
(...) Lars has already been implementing that support since... what year? 2004? Probably even longer. I may would have joined it, but it didn't work then and I still can't get it to work now, 3½ years later. (tried testdoc.pov) And, like I said, (...) (17 years ago, 1-Jul-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
