| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Don Heyse writes:
>
> [snipped things down a bit]
>
> > So it appears as if we agree that L3P-generated objects don't
> > really belong in official LDRAW part files.
>
> Generally, yeah. But mostly to the extent that I haven't thought it through
> enough.
>
> > 0 IFNDEF L3PPOV
> > 0 normal LDRAW version of part 326bp04.dat
> > ...
> > 0 ELSE
> > 0 INCLUDE l3ppov\326bp04.pov
> > 0 ENDIF
>
> That could work, but IMO only pushes the issue to the side. To some extent,
> LDraw.org would still be blessing non-ldraw, non-pov-ray syntactic elements.
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 message to some other program since the original LDRAW
(and any of the current generation of viewers/editors) is going to
ignore it. Is a "pure" POV extension somehow better than a mixed POV
plus "something else" extension? Neither one is under the control of
ldraw.org.
Perhaps a better idea is to build another parallel distribution of
POV enhanced parts and work on ways to automatically substitute them
in l3p or ldrawpov or whatever, without resorting to any inline
0 IFDEF <code> syntax. Isn't this what's already being done with the
LGEO parts?
Instead of inserting 0 IFDEF L3PPOV in the part files, l3p could be
enhanced to look for a %LDRAWDIR%\l3p directory and automagically
substitute l3p\xxxxxxxx.pov for xxxxxxxx.dat whenever it finds the
.pov file with the same basename in the l3p directory.
If it's done this way with external parallel directories, you can
have several competing sets of POV parts, Lightwave parts, or whatever
without modifying a single line of the core LDRAW parts. Sounds good
to me. That's zero extra lines in the LDRAW part files instead of 4.
Don
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
