Phil Endecott <spam_from_boost_dev <at> chezphil.org> writes:
Some quick thoughts:
- Thank you for writing some documentation. I found the link unreliable at first but I was able to see the docs eventually.
Hmm .. Initially I wasn't going to provide those links, but just kindly ask people to download the archive, unpack it and go to the right chapter manual. But then I though making it easier was worth it.
- Perhaps you would like to compare and contrast your library vs. all the other proposals.
Would be a good idea, indeed. I first need to check out the other libraries (in boost and others) before being able to make any meaningful comparison. But I can highlight the following points that I think might set things apart. My code: - Is oriented towards GUI programming not towards mathematical/geometrical/numerical computation. - Is zero cost: using a struct point { int x, y;} is not more efficient (speed&memory) then a geom::point<>; - Is not ``yet another points&rectangles library'' (like wxPoint/wxRect, QPoint/QRect, POINT/RECT, XPoint/XRect, SDL_Rect,.. etc) but rather an aim at providing an interface into which to plug implementation types.
- and you don't provide a way to iterate over all the co-ordinates of a point.
Currently I don't support anything beyond 2D and 3D (i.e the number of coordinates in always known in advance). Cases where the number of coordinates isn't known at compile time seems out of my scope,... but I'm not sure...
a library will need to demonstrate that is has worthwhile features at higher levels (algorithms, containers, bindings etc.)
Hmmm ... again this is beyond my initial scope.
Until then we'll all propose lots of slightly-different "bottom levels" and disagree about which is best.
I see...
- "Rationale" is spelt with an 'e' when it's a noun in this sense Ouch! ;) Thanks for pointing this out!
Reguards,