Re: [boost] Geometry/Vector Lib

From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-13 03:48:29

In-Reply-To: <4528E0F8.1070503_at_[hidden]>
macke_at_[hidden] (Marcus Lindblom) wrote (abridged):
> The point I'm trying to make is that there is as almost much opinion on 
> member-access on vectors as there are on code indent size. So, whatever 
> we make ought to support everything, if we want it to be acceptable to 
> a large audience?

And I was making the more-or-less opposite point, that the interface 
doesn't matter too much as long as it doesn't expose the representation.

The core question is whether encapsulation matters for a class like this. 
With emphasis on the "like this" - I'm sure we all love encapsulation 
normally, and the issue is whether this is one of the rare exceptions. If 
we support the v.x syntax we can't store vectors in polar representation, 
or add checks or instrumentation to accesses, or have values that are 
calculated on demand, or use any number of other techniques which rely on 
information hiding. Does it matter in this case?

It's ultimately a judgement call, and I don't think my own opinion should 
carry any special weight, so I will try to stop posting about it after 
this and let you get on with it.

-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.