That sounds, basically, as a good idea. So they are indeed already
20 new headerfiles in the svn source tree, as you state below. OK,
great, have you already implemented the concept for one case, e.g.
ublas? Such that we can test the things and change the current
matrices with their implementation (they currently use ublas, at
least for inversion).
You know all these algorithms already exist for years? I think you
know, but you bring this as new to the list, so what is the
rationale to change the current implementations, instead of
extending implementations? Do you propose to be backwards
compatible? What was exactly the thing(s) missing to propose and
implement all these new things? Is the interface wrong, or the
implementation, or just concepts that you missed?
I realize (and assume) the current functionality is not widely used,
so yes many things might miss. But these algorithms (e.g. transform)
already exist for years, we cannot change it without reason.
What is the difference between this and "subtract_point" (which was
Can you specify the last three items? I just don't understand it.
calculating rotation between vectors, do you mean that you have one
origin, two vectors (probably unit vectors), and calculate the
transformation matrix from these? Actually I don't understand the
exact meaning of all these things you specify. Without looking at
the source (I did not do that yet).
Can you specify this more?
Great work! However, up to now is it good to consider them all as
experimental? I really appreciate you're hard working on this, but
within a week we have to cope with 20 new headerfiles, with
implementations of things which were already there, though in a
different (and maybe not perfect) form, without proper discussions
before... We have to be able to keep the overview, no? And besides
this there are the new things and new headerfiles for ball (which
also already existed) too...
I realize you mailed recently about this, 27/5, but one or two days
later you mailed that it was sent too hastily. So it was mostly
ignored. Or do we still have to re-read these mails before
understanding the things above?
Anyway, thanks for your initiatives and hard work, of course, and I
hope we will be able to integrate the old and new implementations,
the concepts idea (at least) sounds good to me.