Special:
|
[DAT] (requires LDraw-compatible viewer)
|
Subject:
|
Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:08:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1120 times
|
| |
|
|
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 address the same problem (replacing curvature, studs
on/off) in their own way. Then there would not have to be a subpart, and
real but alternate LDRAW lines wouldn't have to be hidden in a comment.
Actually this IS like having an in-line subpart with just a comment around it:
0 pure.dat
(ldraw code)
0
0 BEGIN SECTION STUD
1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 stud2.dat
0 END SECTION STUD
0 BEGIN SECTION TUBE
1 16 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 ring3.dat
1 16 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 ring2.dat
1 16 0 4 0 6 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 6 4-4cyli.dat
0 END SECTION TUBE
and an auxiliary file would specify how to replace those blocks:
REPLACE SECTION STUD
#if (STUDS)
QUOTE STUD
#end
END
REPLACE SECTION TUBE
cylinder{<0,0,0>,<0,17,0>,13.001
clipped_by{
(more L3P/POV-Ray code)
}
END
The STUD section quotes the original block, but conditionally.
The TUBE section specifies a replacement.
I'm sure I'm not the first one to propose a marking-up extension.....
On namespace, yes, a namespace would mean a separate file library containing
the same part names. It may be that a certain namespace is only enabled
during printing, or when exporting to a renderer.
Namespaces do not solve your problem, where you want abilities like a
preprocessor macro, and one file.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
26 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
|
|
|
|
