sunag

@fyoudine I think that the ideal would be to move all `NodalFunctionNode` features to `ShaderNode`, thus we can to choose via some property of `ShaderNode` or `NodeBuilder` the way we...

I think that we can include the function `call()` in `ShaderNode` and add some extra `method` to create the function `scheme` like: ```js const checkerShaderNode = new ShaderNode( ( inputs...

> Isn't it a bit confusing to have NodeFunctionInputs inside a ShaderNode ? I think that no, maybe a better name for the function like: ```js checkerShaderNode.setInputs( [ new NodeFunctionInput(...

> Imho this could simplify the build process and lets have a node usage counting I think we have a count here: https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/9db14dd2abd922874656c2f8d1e04c792fb0f594/examples/jsm/renderers/nodes/core/NodeBuilder.js#L23

I made it optimization process in old `NodeMaterial` system but using the `NodeBuilder`, it uses `Node.analyze()` approach. https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/blob/9db14dd2abd922874656c2f8d1e04c792fb0f594/examples/jsm/nodes/core/Node.js#L17

> was there a reason for removing it ? I want to do something a little better this time.

> What do you think ? @fyoudine I would refer to use methods closer to classic compilers like `analyze()` I think this is more sense to prepare nodes for `generate()`...

About shadow, this could not be `light.shadow`? ```javascript light.shadow = new THREE.PCSSShadow(); ```

About `scene.background` and `scene.fog` the idea of use class `new THREE.ExponentialFog()` is that these `generate` the shader itself, like something extended of `ShaderMaterial` for example, without depending of core modification?...

@RemusMar Thanks... how are you?