Jason Hise wrote:
There are two usability features that my implementation provides which yours does not. The first is being able to index a vector by name (_x, _y, _z, _w). This is easily implemented using a properly scoped enum. I used leading underscores for my component names as a convention to indicate that they were property names, though admittedly this naming convention could be debated.
vector <float, 3> up; up[_x] = 0; up[_y] = 1; up[_z] = 0;
I've never found such a convention very useful. It is a trivial thing to add if others do.
I think it falls into the same category as not using magic numbers. To give another example, if you use a vector to store a color, being able to refer to the components as r, g, b, and a channels instead of by number improves readability. But perhaps enumerating these constants is better left to client code.
I also think that this is best left to the client code. The concept of a mathematical vector should be kept separate from any domain-specific meaning (Cartesian vector, color space, etc.) Also, I think its best not to pollute the namespace with constants that are so likely conflict with other names. - jason