On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 03:01:07 +0100 "Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Manfred Doudar" wrote
If your dot product is indeed an inner product, then an inner_product is what you should call your op - being explicit rather than suggestive is always better (, sorry, just that my mathematics grounding makes me speak out on this one).
Dunno, but FWIW , from the source code:
involving transform of a homogeneous 2D coordinate (3 elements) by a 2D transform matrix (9 elements) here's the resulting assembler of my latest CVS version in VC8 with optimisation. I'm no expert but it looks pretty good to me
; 113 : // do runtime calc ; 114 : quan::fusion::dot_product dot; ; 115 : result_type result( ; 116 : dot(coordinate,col0), ; 117 : dot(coordinate,col1), ; 118 : dot(coordinate,col2) ; 119 : );
Please see my brief reply to Geoffrey Irving; ... and apologies for any apprehension caused, but its my fault - the best name to use really depends on context. Cheers, -- Manfred Doudar - Research Engineer National ICT Australia - Canberra Research Lab | www.nicta.com.au Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering (RSISE) The Australian National University - Canberra, ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA