On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 14:19 +0600, Sergey Sharybin wrote: > It's rather easy to do to make it consistent without braking render result > compatibility. Scripts would break because RNA will change tho. I guess remains to be seen then how many scripts set or change 'no caustics' personally I don't have any... so would not be affected. But I don't want to speak up for everybody. So from me personally there are no objections to changing it (but I don't have such a problem with it staying the way it is, either)
> > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Bassam Kurdali <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 18:40 -0700, gandalf3 wrote: > > > This has bugged me for a while now.. > > > Is there particular reason the "no caustics" option in *render settings > > > > light paths* is called "no caustics" as opposed to just "caustics"? > > - was it a good idea to do it this way? > > Not sure! you're right in that it seems like the logic is kinda reversed > > on both checkboxes (shadow and caustics) > > - is it a good idea to change it now? > > Also not sure!!! can this be done and preserve compatibility with > > existing files? If not, then I'd vote against this: too many files to > > fix...(not to mention python scripts) > > > > > > It seems > > > ( > > http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/Source/Architecture/RNA#Properties > > ) > > > it's preferred to avoid such names, so is there some special case here > > > that I'm missing? > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > > > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
