From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-05 21:09:58
John Femiani wrote:
>>> Well coordinate access is only a part of what makes a point a
>>> There are hundreds of years of geometry and many API's to contend
>>> as well. I kind of think (hope) that if the scope is kept extremely
>>> limited then it is possible to come up with generic point concepts,
>>> maybe a reference implementation, that would make everybody happy.
>>> the boost wiki where these ideas could be fleshed out?
>> Sure. That's why I said "minimum". The minimum I need involves only
>> structural information. I'm sure there are more domain specific
>> interfaces required of points.
>> Joel de Guzman
> Agreed -- but semantics get especially tricky here I think. The
> distinction between a point and a vector is lost if all you care about
> are lists of coordinates, for instance. You can do things to lists of
> coordinates that you should not be able to do with points.
Indeed. That's the domain specific (geometry domain) part. I do
care about that, but I'll leave you guys to deal with that. My main
concern is the most general mapping of different tuple types
(including structs). That includes, but is not limited to, points
and coordinate sequences.
-- 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