Subject: [geometry] nsphere concept
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-22 13:36:35
I have some thoughts about the nsphere that I'd like to share. For now I
think of two changes:
1. The name which I, like the author of comments, find not really
suitable could be changed. I propose to change it to "ball" because:
- in maths it's not only a 3D object, when we consider n-dimensional
metric spaces it's n-dimensional.
- it is also a name of a non-math object (e.g. play ball) just like a Box
- it's shorter
2. Currently the implemented model has following template parameters:
template <typename Point, typename Radius>
Is it really needed to define Radius as a separate type? It might at
least have a default:
typename Radius = coordinate_type<Point>::type
Another thing is a separate radius_type but I guess there might be cases
where this is helpful.
To get/set radius one may call get_radius<0>(geom) and
set_radius<0>(geom) respectively which is ok since for ellipses and
ellipsoids one must specify radius index.
However I find the centre point access non-intuitive. Correct me if I'm
wrong but it seems that now the nsphere is accessed like a Point? So to
get a centre's cordinate one may call:
which is a little ambiguous.
Why not use an access method already used in the case of the Box - get
with index? Like this:
The first one would return coordinate_type and the second one
radius_type which could be different.
What do you think?
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net