Geometry Boost List: Re: [geometry] translation and rotation proposal

Subject: Re: [geometry] translation and rotation proposal
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-22 14:45:03

Hi,

2013/6/22 Bruno Lalande <bruno.lalande_at_[hidden]>

>
>  Ok, the Vector Concept looks obvious as it would be probably exactly the
>> same as Point.
>
>
> Yep, as I said one question is: should vector_type<point> just return
> point by default, and users interested in vector/point differentiation
> would have to state it by specializing the metafunction (or calling a
> convenience macro)? or should it enforce point/vector differentiation
> straight away? Personally, for backward compatibility and "simplicity by
> default" reasons, I'd vote for the former.
>
>
But why do we need vector_type at all? If we had Vector concept it should
just work with algorithms. And difference() could work for Points and
Vectors. The user could call

Point p = return_difference<Point>(p1, p2);

or if he want to use some legacy vector class he could adapt it to the
Vector concept and use it:

MyVector v = return_difference<MyVector>(p1, p2);

just like in the case of Geometries.

Regards,
Adam