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: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-03 15:21:18

Hi,

Andrew Hundt schreef op 2-7-2015 om 7:47:
> 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.

This is indeed exactly what is wished. Boost.Geometry currently uses 
Boost.UBlas for some vector/matrix operations. But those operations are, 
actually already from the start, planned to once be replaced and 
extended, and QVM looks like a good candidate for that.

Regards, Barend