From: me22 (me22.ca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-10 14:07:12
Just a few observations...
On 6/10/06, Andy Little <andy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> IMO it makes sense to put 3D entities in a 3D space and 2D entities in a 2D
> space, but its not critical to me either way
Can the vector not be templated on length? I know a simple
(dimensionless) vector can be templated on length (
but perhaps PQS needs something that prevents this...
> > I believe that in matrices there is no need to support both row-column and
> > column-row notation explicitly, but rather to keep internal compatibility
> > thorough whole library. Based on that I'd strongly suggest to rename
> > rc_matrix
> > into matrix, and never implement cr_matrix. There is an interesting reasoning
> > about
> > this problem inside panda3d software manual (given time I'll find it later).
> Its certainly less work sticking to one type of matrix so I dont object to that.
> There may be performance resaons to choose on or other type?
If the internal storage for the matrix is usable as an array,
interfacing with different C apis would be much easier if the ordering
could be chosen (or at least relied upon). As I recall, OpenGL uses
column-major and DirectX uses row-major, so there could be big savings
in not needing to copy the values when passing the data to those APIs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk