Re: [boost] Fwd: Re: [Boost-users] [boost-users][QVM] Boost.QVM formal review is ongoing

Subject: Re: [boost] Fwd: Re: [Boost-users] [boost-users][QVM] Boost.QVM formal review is ongoing
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-14 21:59:24

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> It seems that you've send a response to the boost-users list and I'm
> guessing Emil is not a subscriber because he haven't responded. So I'm
> forwarding it to the developers mailing list.

I am a subscriber to boost-users but I've missed Paul's message, thanks for
the reminder!

> 2  Boost prefers clarity to curtness.  The naming is much too terse making
> the resulting code rather
> 'write-only'.  I'd at least go for col_mat for col_m and transpose for
> transp etc.  (I know any
> changes will be a big PITA but shows that asking sooner than later is a
> good idea for would-be Boost
> library authors ;-)
>

I'm not concerned about the PITA part :) and I hear this message loud and
clear, transp, trans and perhaps a few other things will be renamed. That
said, in a library called QVM it should be clear what the _q, _v and _m
suffixes mean. I've found this naming convention very useful, there are
many QVM names that are consistent with it. I'd rather not change these.

> 4  Does this mesh at all with the quaternions in Boost.Math library?
>

This issue falls under the category of "it would be useful if QVM had
available bindings for this or that type", and I agree 100% with that. I
plan to add a directory qvm/bindings, where I'd be adding API-specific
headers defining QVM bindings for various types, e.g. OpenGL, DirectX,
Boost Math, Eigen, Maya, whatever.

Thanks!
Emil