From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-19 11:32:55
Ullrich Koethe wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote:
>> > VIGRA doesn't have an explicit RGBA type (TinyVector<T, 4> can be used
>> > instead), because so far no-one came up with a convincing proposal for
>> > these operations. But without them, RGBA is pretty useless.
>> Hmmm... TinyVector<T, 4>... I think VIGRA should use Fusion for
>> that instead ;-)
> I had a look at Fusion, but I'm not sure whether it would be helpful in
> this context. TinyVector is based on three design goals: it should support
> the std::vector interface (except for resize etc.),
it should be fast (you
> have millions of these beasts in a single image),
and it should behave
> like a built-in arithmetic type (except for division which is problematic
> because the zero vector is not the only one that may cause a
> division-by-zero error).
No problem. But have you seen Andy's work on matrices using fusion?
Fusion may be more helpful in heterogeneous pixel
> types, but they often have very specific requirements that are perhaps
> better handled explicitly.
Like what, for example?
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk