From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-06 16:59:55
>>>> Hopefully these can avoid the boost minefield relating to 'point'
>>> because trees only work on coordinates (no need to intepret them as
>>> per se), and meshes are entirely topological.
>>> I don't see anything wrong with a CartesianCoordinateConcept that
> I see good use for:
> IndexablePointConcept - supports runtime indexing (array-like access,
> e.g. vec)
> TupleAccessConcept - supports boost::get<N>(vec) syntax
> at a minimum, and we can probably think of more.
> --Michael Fawcett
So much for avoiding the minefield! I really did not mean to steer this
conversation that way. Anyhow I think we are talking about coordinates
and not points. What I got out of the past discussions on points was
that a "Point" is completely different than the coordinates used to
describe it, and that there is this whole slew of semantic issues verses
performance tradeoffs regarding things like the fact that vectors are
not points, you can not add points, etc.
Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk