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: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-30 06:56:22

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
On
> Behalf Of Ross Levine
> Sent: 30 March 2009 04:09
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] fixed size matrix class? (was: Interest check
for 3d
> geometry proposal)
> 
> 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.

Well it might be easy - but IMO the most useful GSoC projects are those that
have limited objectives - but actually get finished.

There has been a lot of discussion about projects that sound way too
ambitious for the time available for a GSoC.

Testing and documentation take more time and effort than people usually
estimate for.

It would be useful to have even a 2D library in a reviewable state.

If there is any time left over, other 3, 4 and other fixed N can be explored
or tackled?

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, UK   LA8 8AB
[phone], mobile [phone]
pbristow_at_[hidden]
E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386)
Database version: 5.12070
http://www.pctools.com/uk/spyware-doctor-antivirus/