Re: [boost] Review Request: QVM (generic Quaternion, Vector and Matrix operations library)

Subject: Re: [boost] Review Request: QVM (generic Quaternion, Vector and Matrix operations library)
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-02 02:46:54

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Andrew Hundt <athundt_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Emil Dotchevski <
> emildotchevski_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Michael Marcin <mike.marcin_at_[hidden]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/26/2015 1:30 AM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> > > What I mean is Boost.Geometry already has adapters for point types
> among
> > > other things.
> > > You are providing adapters for matrix vector and quaternion types.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_58_0/libs/geometry/doc/html/geometry/examples/example__adapting_a_legacy_geometry_object_model.html
> > >
> >
> > It seems to me Geometry is about shapes and shape operations and
> iteration.
> > QVM has nothing to do with shapes or iteration, but it defines a complete
> > set of generic namespace-scope quaternion/matrix/vector operations, which
> > Geometry doesn't. I also think that it shouldn't: if you want to use such
> > operations with Geometry types just use the QVM adaptation machinery
>
> I've always dreamt of boost.geometry supporting 3d, and qvm might be a way
> to accomplish that. However, it might make the most sense for
> boost.geometry 3d components to utilize qvm under the hood to implement 3d
> geometric functionality rather than make qvm part of boost.geometry.
> Perhaps others can imagine better ways to accomplish these goals.
>

I've done my best to keep QVM as lightweight as possible, including by
separating different operations in different headers -- for example, if you
need to work with 3D vectors and nothing else, you can usually just
#include "boost/qvm/v3.hpp" to basically get a few hundred lines of simple
operator definitions. Also, consider that QVM can work with other
libraries' native types, which results in relatively little coupling. So
yes, I imagine that it may make sense to use QVM in the implementation of
libraries like Geometry, though I'm not familiar with it so I might be
wrong.

-- 
Emil Dotchevski
Reverge Studios, Inc.
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode