<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2013/6/22 Bruno Lalande <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bruno.lalande@gmail.com" target="_blank">bruno.lalande@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"><br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div>MyVector v = return_difference<MyVector>(p1, p2);<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>OK, what I had in mind was to allow for an interface where users don't have to specify the return type (the call would just be return_different(p1, p2) and the library would just determine if a vector or a point is expected). But I realize your proposal is more aligned with what we generally do right now in the library. I do have plans to make all return_xxx functions more convenient, not just that one, and what I was proposing better fits in those more general plans, so yes we can skip it for now.<br> <br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I've choosen the interface close to the one used right now:<br><br>MyVector v = return_difference<MyVector>(p1, p2);<br></div><div>//and<br> </div><div>difference(p1, p2, v);<br><br>Does it colide with the one you'd like to introduce later? I guess no, because you plan to support it together with the existing one?<br><br></div><div>But what about coordinate_system? Should we use it even if we omit it for now and assume that Vectors and other concepts we'd like to add now are cartesian?<br> <br></div><div>Regards,<br>Adam<br></div></div></div></div>