Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] GGL review starts today, November 5th
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-12 02:08:41
Barend Gehrels wrote:
> We've implemented the hull as an "agnostic" strategy because it is not
> dependant on coordinate system itself. It is however dependant on two
> underlying strategies, "side" and "compare". So in cartesian coordinate
> systems the "side" is implemented differently from how it would be
> implemented in a spherical coordinate system. Same for compare
> (spherical compare assumes that the coordinates do not span more than
> halve of the sphere).
> So yes, for points we need to know in which coordinate system they are
> placed, in order to get the calculation strategy. Note that the
> point-type does not have to have one, but the Point Concept. So using a
> traits class you can bind a coordinate system to a point type.
> So if you define a "dictionary coordinate space" where the "side" is
> probably still as defined as it is now for cartesian in the library (it
> can just register the same calculation class), you can call the convex
> hull for it.
> If that answers your question...
> Regards, Barend
thanks for the answer. I guess I am being pedantic :-). The name Geometry
means something like the wikipedia definition for me:
Geometry is a part of mathematics concerned with questions of size, shape,
relative position of figures and with properties of space.
A coordinate system is a property of a subset of types of spaces. A
coordinate system is just a way to express where points are situated in a
certain space. Distances are properties of a space -- not of a coordinate
One of the consequences is that the distance between points in a Euclidean
space expressed in Cartesian or polar (or ...) coordinate systems are, by
definition, the same.
This is probably one of the pieces that is causing my confusion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk