Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:16:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
34217 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Roland Melkert wrote:
> 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 like opengl code (just some examples).
> Imho this is a correct attitude,
After some tough discussion some years ago, I now agree on that (although so
far, I've seen nothing that comes remotely close to L3P+POV-Ray. And I doubt
there will be in a foreseeable future).
> I don't see why it would be a problem to keep
> the povray variant/improvements in separate (similar named) files (eg lgeo). So
> tools can merge the data when needed.
You don't??? Are you serious? I can instantly think of four or five good reasons
why I (and obviously Dave!, too) prefer inline POV code before separate files
like LGEO. Please try again before I reveal the correct answers.
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| In lugnet.cad.ray, Tore Eriksson wrote: <snip> (...) I'm sorry I really don't, the 'if then' construction is pretty much the same only thing is the two versions are in the same file. So perhaps you are hinting on maintainability or mixed single (...) (14 years ago, 29-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
