Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] fixed size matrix class? (was: Interest check for 3d geometry proposal)
From: Ross Levine (ross.levine_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-29 23:09:10
I guess I'll be a voice of dissent. I personally think a fixed 2d
matrix is too easy. It seems all you would have to do is either use a
flat boost::array of Rows * Columns or the like, and copy
boost::array's interface. This is from someone who is programming a
game and already made a 2d matrix class.
I do, however, think that a fixed-size n-dimensional matrix would be
better for GSoC, and can see the value in that. It would be difficult,
though, without varidic templates.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Emil Dotchevski
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Patrick Mihelich
> <patrick.mihelich_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I think a fixed-size matrix class would be a great GSoC project. Or base of
>> a larger project for the really ambitious student :). Many extra points if
>> it is able to piggy-back on Joel's SIMD library. Lack of good fixed-size
>> support is one reason I abandoned uBLAS.
>> Who and why would use the fixed size matrix class?
>> This seems like a strange question coming from a game developer. Fixed-size
>> matrix can be dramatically more efficient since you can stack-allocate it
>> and make optimal use of SIMD instructions. I use Eigen2's fixed-size
>> vectors/matrices all the time.
> I think you misunderstood my question. It was in reply to something
> along the lines of "we can write it and even if it isn't good for game
> developers, that's fine." My point was that game developers are the
> primary audience for such a library. See my previous post:
> Emil Dotchevski
> Reverge Studios, Inc.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk