Subject: Re: [geometry] translation and rotation proposal
From: Bruno Lalande (bruno.lalande_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-22 09:37:05
Ok, the Vector Concept looks obvious as it would be probably exactly the
> same as Point.
Yep, as I said one question is: should vector_type<point> just return point
by default, and users interested in vector/point differentiation would have
to state it by specializing the metafunction (or calling a convenience
macro)? or should it enforce point/vector differentiation straight away?
Personally, for backward compatibility and "simplicity by default" reasons,
I'd vote for the former.
Probably only one questionable thing is coordinate_system. Should we allow
> Vectors with coordinates defined in some other than cartesian coordinate
No idea, not familiar enough with non-cartesian systems to say if it makes
sense. Barend what would you say?
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net