 | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) OK. I'll write up a spec/reference page on 0 IFDEF. It will include the following metacommands: 0 IFDEF <code> 0 IFNDEF <code> 0 ELSE 0 ENDIF Should there be a 0 ELSEIFDEF and/or 0 ELSEIFNDEF? (...) Steve (22 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) Which part of it aren't you keen about? Is it all the extra stuff in the dat file? If so, then perhaps this is a good time to dredge up my 0 INCLUDE suggestion yet again. ;) (URL) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) No, I meant the POVRay code referring to L3P-generated objects. By allowing this code in official part files, we'd be endorsing language that hasn't been generally discussed and reviewed. Not that I see any particular problem with the code. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) So it appears as if we agree that L3P-generated objects don't really belong in official LDRAW part files. Once again this brings us back to the 0 INCLUDE suggestion. Imagine that ldraw.org (or someone else) distributes a separate set of part (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Don Heyse writes: [snipped things down a bit] (...) Generally, yeah. But mostly to the extent that I haven't thought it through enough. (...) That could work, but IMO only pushes the issue to the side. To some extent, LDraw.org (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) Well, if thats how you really feel, then why even bother to "write up a spec/reference page on 0 IFDEF" at all. The instant you put the line: 0 IFDEF <code> in a part file you're blessing a non-ldraw extension. The <code> is by definition a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| In a nutshell, 'namespaces'. Switching among parts libraries to get different versions (or different data) should be an application capability, not the individual part file. (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) I'm not following. Are you agreeing with the idea of using embedded POV-Ray code, or having separate file libraries? I *think* you agree with the second, am I right? The one thing we gain by having embedded POV-Ray code is the ability to have (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) When I wrote this message, I was trying to figure some rational way to mix LDraw and L3P/POV-Ray code. Something like: 0 IFNDEF L3PPOV (ldraw code) 0 ELSE 0 #if (STUDS) 0 LDRAW 0 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 stud2.dat 0 LDRAW END 0 #end 0 (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) Right! I have always thought of the "0 IFNDEF L3PPOV" as a way to utilize most of the normal LDraw lines (that L3P can convert to equivalent POV code) and only replace a small tricky curvy section by some POV code that would look better. This (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code? [DAT]
|
| I see now that your problem is difficult to solve. Sorry I tried to put it into a nutshell, Steve. My preference would be to design an auxiliary file for each case, and markup the LDRAW part in a very general way, so that future programs could (...) (22 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) No big deal. I just wasn't sure which nut you were shelling. :) (...) Hmm. The problem is that there would be a lot of cases - we've already got a way to handle general stuff (by creating 'primitive' files). And my (general) preference is to (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) Huh...? This is getting too complicated, lost me! Most of you have seen what I have done with adding POV part descriptions to parts. I believe that I was using them correctly with the "established" methods. To make much change would be too (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) I think where I want to go with it, is to keep things simple and limited. At least for now. Embedded POV-Ray code should not make references to L3P-defined objects or definitions. It should stick strictly with primitive operations. Maybe later (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| |
