
Boost : 
From: Theodore Papadopoulo (Theodore.Papadopoulo_at_[hidden])
Date: 20060921 12:18:10
On Thu, 20060921 at 08:54 0400, Michael Fawcett wrote:
>
> You can get around this using something like this:
>
> template< typename T >
> struct Vector4 {
>
> typedef size_t size_type;
>
> private:
>
> typedef T Vector4<T>::* const vec[4];
>
> static const vec v;
>
> public:
>
> T x, y, z, w;
>
> Vector4(T _x = 0, T _y = 0, T _z = 0, T _w = 0):
> x(_x), y(_y), z(_z), w(_w) {}
>
> const T& operator[](size_type i) const {
> return this>*v[i];
> }
>
> T& operator[](size_type i) {
> return this>*v[i];
> }
>
> };
>
> template< typename T >
> const typename Vector4<T>::vec Vector4<T>::v = { &Vector4<T>::x,
> &Vector4<T>::y, &Vector4<T>::z, &Vector4<T>::z };
>
> Here's the original discussion from gamedev.net
> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=261920
>
> This wasn't written by me, I just remembered it from there and thought
> it might be interesting to you.
Interesting ! But I would certainly prefer the straightforward array
implementation and an enum {X,Y,Z,Z} that allows the notation
V[X] or V(X) (depending on your preference). The only fear I may have
with your proposal is that by having complicated accesses, the compiler
might not be able to do some optimizations.
Theo.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk