Subject: Re: [boost] Geometry and spatial indexes, my opinion
From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-08 22:29:00
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J
> Michael Fawcett wrote:
>>As for the heterogeneous types, think of huge (GBs worth) digital
>>elevation models in meter units where altitude is in a range from 0 -
>>20,000m. In that case, my point type would be something like
>>vector3<int, short, int> instead of a vector3<int>.
> Phil Endecott wrote:
>>In GPS data, I store altitude to the nearest metre in an int16_t, and
>>altitude and longitude in degrees in 32-bit fixed-point types.
>>Although longitude needs one more bit than latitude I tend to use the
>>same type for both, so my 2d algorithms are homogeneous. But anything
>>that also involves altitude needs to be heterogeneous.
> In VLSI layout we sometimes represent the layer as the z axis of a 3D
> coordinate system. Because there are only tens of layers we can use
> something smaller than int to store it. However, the compiler will
> often pad it back to word aligned addressing and insert padding bytes
> into a data structure, reducing the memory savings. Also, internally,
> all arithmetic is 32 bit or greater, so there is no advantage in using
> smaller data types for local operations. I think it is perfectly
> reasonable to allow point classes to have heterogeneous coordinate
> types, but require them to cast to and from a homogeneous coordinate
> type at the interface between that object and the geometry library. In
> all three examples, we would make the coordinate type of the interface
> between the point and the library int and allow the 16 bit value to cast
> up to 32 bits when it is read into an algorithm and back down to 16 bits
> when it is written out.
I don't understand why the interface or algorithm cares whether it's
homogeneous or heterogeneous.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk