Hopefully these can avoid the boost minefield relating to 'point'
because trees only work on coordinates (no need to intepret them as
types points"
per se), and meshes are entirely topological.
I don't see anything wrong with a CartesianCoordinateConcept that ..... I see good use for:
IndexablePointConcept - supports runtime indexing (array-like access, e.g. vec[0]) TupleAccessConcept - supports boost::get<N>(vec) syntax at a minimum, and we can probably think of more. --Michael Fawcett
So much for avoiding the minefield! I really did not mean to steer this conversation that way. Anyhow I think we are talking about coordinates and not points. What I got out of the past discussions on points was that a "Point" is completely different than the coordinates used to describe it, and that there is this whole slew of semantic issues verses performance tradeoffs regarding things like the fact that vectors are not points, you can not add points, etc. --John _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost