Subject: Re: [geometry] translation and rotation proposal
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-20 14:50:18
Bruno Lalande wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> OK, I agree that having those concepts could indeed allow those
> strategies to be more generic, and would bring more possibilities. We
> can go that way then. However I'd advise to concentrate on one concept
> at a time and get it right, rather than doing all 3 at the same time.
> Not to mention it will make the technical discussions much easier. Since
> vector is something that was discussed in the past and expressed as a
> need by users, I'd start with that.
Ok, the Vector Concept looks obvious as it would be probably exactly the
same as Point. Probably only one questionable thing is
coordinate_system. Should we allow Vectors with coordinates defined in
some other than cartesian coordinate system?
And as you've written before we could provide a function:
xxx(p1, p2, v)
xxx<Vec>(p1, p2) / return_xxx<Vec>(p1, p2)
where xxx might be difference or translation
+ transform strategy:
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net