From: Manfred Doudar (manfred.doudar_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-02 21:57:58
Hubert Holin wrote:
>Somewhere in the E.U., le 02/06/2005
> I am combining here answers two two posts, which, in unison, I
>think validate my point.
> The possible objection to the usefulness of quaternions, for a
>significant portion of potential users at least, is the absence of a
>direct link to their favorite - and mutually incompatible -
>domain-specific API, leading to inefficiencies.
I wish I had a little more time to forward a more dignified response,
but I sincerely hope you are not dissuaded in your work by those whom
might otherwise object to fundamental mathematical objects being part
of C++ or Boost for that matter.
I for one, as you believe - think that we desperately need fundamental
mathematical concepts/ objects enshrined in the language; there are too
many of us out there needlessly reinventing the wheel when it shouldn't be.
-Should I avail myself of more time (don't know when just yet, but I'll let
you know when), but I would like to help you down this path if you're
-- Manfred Doudar MetOcean Engineers www.metoceanengineers.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk