From: Geoffrey Irving (irving_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-18 14:35:50
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 01:29:20AM +0200, Janek Kozicki wrote:
> Andy Little said: (by the date of Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:25:50 +0100)
> > I have been following the geometry debate with interest. It probably doesnt need
> > to be stated that geometry on numeric types is a sophisticated field. Geometry
> > on strongly typed quantities in C++ is I think a relatively unexplored field.
> we had a discussion about this few months ago, lenghty thread named
> "Interest in geometry library". But then it drifted towards some other
> more "geometrical" things like circles, ellipses, or defining a
> namespace with name 'euclidean' so that inside will be stored all
> functions related to euclidean space, and then other namespaces for
> other spaces. And it all got lost, because it simply grew too big.
> Therefore currently I would prefer to avoid name 'geometry' because we
> are in fact talking about just linear algebra (that's what vectors and
> matrices are).
Most people who see linear algebra will think large dimensional spaces,
large dimensional linear system solves, eigen-analysis, etc. How
about just 'vectors'?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk