[no subject]

> In fact, your system as it stands is beautiful to me in large part
> because the underlying mathematical forms are clearly expressed in the
> library.  To stop short on this point seems to me a kind of unnecessary
> incompleteness.
>
> But I hope that I could come to understand the necessity, if my
> distinctions were
>
> (a) truly impractical to make,
> (b) abhorrent to your aesthetic sensibilities, or
> (c) just plain misconceptions on my part.  :^)

Actually, from my point of view this only adds an unnecessary
complexity, and though I understand your motivations, I think the
current solution is mathematically sound.

> Nevertheless, in my naive imagination, I should like something like
> this:
>
> Transform3f T;
> Vector3f v;
> Point3f p;
>
> "T * v"  returns a Vector3f corresponding to just the linear
> transformation.  This is different from what you do now, which is to
> assume that v is a point.
>
> "T * p"  returns a Point3f corresponding to the whole affine
> transformation (linear transformation plus translation).
>
> In this way, one could put all of one's information about a coordinate
> transformation into an object of type T and then use that same object
> conveniently on vectors and on points without worrying about any
> details.

yes I understood that ! and I refer to my previous comments stating
this solution is not necessarily as nice as it might look like at a
first glance.

>
> In the end, I hope that you are at the very least entertained by this
> discussion.  :^)

it perfectly fill the boring parts of Olympics Games ;)

gael.

> --
> Thomas E. Vaughan
>
> There are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it,
> and those who accept dogma and don't know it. - G.K. Chesterton
>
>
>