Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest check for 3d geometry proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest check for 3d geometry proposal
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-27 07:23:15

Kornel Kisielewicz <kornel.kisielewicz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> One example is object hierarchy via oct or kd trees.

Would you like to implement these spatial containers?  I think this 
would be a very useful contribution.  Ideally your implementation would 
be generic, i.e. usable with fixed-size point types or the 
variable-size uBLAS types; at the end of the project we would then be 
able to evaluate the benefit of removing the size field.  2D & 3D please.

FWIW here's my take on the issues being discussed in this thread:

- Not every platform has a GPU on to which work can be offloaded.

- Although I doubt that wasting a word on a size field has much effect 
on speed, I would want to avoid it when dealing with large collections 
of points because of the memory overhead.

- I have using uBLAS for some simple 2D matrix transformation and found 
it a little bit more difficult than I expected; a special-purpose API, 
even if implemented as a thin wrapper around uBLAS or something else, 
would have the benefit of simplifying things for the end user.

Regards,  Phil.