Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] fixed size matrix class? (was: Interest check for 3d geometry proposal)
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-28 12:41:58

----- Original Message -----
From: "troy d. straszheim" <troy_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] fixed size matrix class? (was: Interest check for 3d geometry proposal)

> 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?


I don't use to use Matrix, but if Boost don't have a fixed-size matrix, this will be always usefull.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at