Re: [boost] [gsoc] fixed size matrix class? (was: Interest check for 3d geometry proposal)

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] fixed size matrix class? (was: Interest check for 3d geometry proposal)
From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-28 08:41:41

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Kornel Kisielewicz
> <kornel.kisielewicz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:33 PM, troy d. straszheim <troy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> One thing boost doesn't have is a fixed-size matrix class, which could be
>>> used with boost::array as a building block for a lot of the more
>>> game-specific tech involved.  Seems to me a boost::matrix class (essentially
>>> a 2d boost::array) would be of reasonable scope/difficulty for a GSOC
>>> project.  If there's time left over, one could investigate making optimized
>>> rotations, dot projects, reflections and the like as freestanding
>>> functions/operators in a special namespace somewhere.
>> And this is definitively what I'd also like to do. As it seems an
>> important topic, I'd make it the base of my proposal.
> 
> A 2D boost array is an overkill for a boost matrix class. In fact the
> whole point of a game-developer-centric matrix/vector support is to
> make the types simple and to the point.

Well I'd like to stop talking about games, I don't think we're getting 
anywhere.  We're trying to find a project that fits into boost somewhere 
and is of appropriate scope for GSOC.   I still maintain that a 
fixed-size matrix class could be one.  This has a well-defined scope and 
a good chance of success.  But maybe somebody can argue that we 
shouldn't have a fixed-size matrix class?

If the student later uses in game code and finds out it isn't exactly 
what he wants, fine.

> 
> For any other application, you'd need a more generic and more abstract
> interface, but such interface will just get in the way for game
> development.
> 

Let's talk about those.  How about interface = "basically the same as 
boost::array?".

-t