Re: [boost] Re: thoughts on a GUI component library

From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-19 07:57:25

In-Reply-To: <877e9a1704121705302ac4bce4_at_[hidden]>
> Not sure. In computer graphics you specifically talk about
> "axis-aligned bounding boxes". To me, "box" is the 3d version of
> "rectangle".

"Axis-aligned bounding boxes" reflects the importance of being explicit 
about whether your rectangles are axis-aligned, so I approve, but it's 
also a bit of a mouthful. I think a shorter name is needed. Some people 
use AABB, but I'm not keen on acronyms. I'm not keen on abbreviations, 
too, otherwise using Rect for the axis-aligned case and Rectangle for the 
general case might work. "Box" was an arbitrary suggestion, in that it 
does not say "axis aligned" of itself, but I can't think of anything 
better.

For me, in a graphics application, "box" is a term of art which can be 
either 2d or 3d. Just as points and offsets can also be 2d or 3d (or 1d or 
4d). If we care about conflicts with 3d stuff, then maybe we need to be 
explicit about this, perhaps by using namespaces. Arguably we shouldn't 
care, because a windowing system is pretty far away from a 3d graphics 
drawing system.

As I realised towards the end of my previous post, perhaps we shouldn't 
care about 2d graphics, either. It's not so clear-cut because windowing is 
also 2d; it's easier to see a continuum between them.

-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK