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]]
> 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
> 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
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
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden] E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (126.96.36.1996) Database version: 5.12070 http://www.pctools.com/uk/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk