Marcus Lindblom wrote:
Dave Harris wrote:
In-Reply-To: <45252C77.3050708@yar.nu> macke@yar.nu (Marcus Lindblom) wrote (abridged):
So, we need to support three different styles of access, at least, to make everyone happy?
- vec[0] - vec.x - vec[_x]
I won't be happy if vec.x is supported, no matter how many other styles of access we add. A class like this should not expose its representation so directly.
Ok. I, OTOH, really likes that kind of notation, since I write a lot of GLSL as well.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is as almost much opinion on member-access on vectors as there are on code indent size. So, whatever we make ought to support everything, if we want it to be acceptable to a large audience?
Perhaps we can make it so that you can decouple access style from the general algorithms? We might need that anyway, if we want to support things like rgba, stqr, etc, for the small 1-4 element vectors.
If we made a "geom-vector" concept similar to boost::range, then we could make a lib that could use anyone's current vectors. (Boost would of course define their own, a couple of variants that pleases everyone). I think it could have some merit to do something that's "pluggable" into existing vector/point/matrix classes. /Marcus