Andy Little wrote:
"Geoffrey Irving" <irving@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message news:20060317182700.GG9842@lie.Stanford.EDU...
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:09:26PM -0300, rodolfo@rodsoft.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 10:17:53AM -0700, Richard Newman wrote:
Is it reasonable to extend the logic to check for 3D shapes (i.e., spheres instead of circles, etc.)?
It certainly would be a reasonable strategy to get the 2D work you have into the library and treat 3D as a later extension.
In my own work on this I used two namespaces "geometry::two_d" and "geometry::three_d". (I shall put what I have in the vault). I or someone could create a Geometry folder ...?
[...]
All coordinates are double. Maybe each primitive should be a template, like: point_t<double> is a point with double floating point coordinates, point_t<int> is with integer coordinates, etc.
Templatization of the float type is good, and again point_t should probably be a general purpose small vector type.
I'm not at all familiar with the math involved, but I imagine that the capabilities could be extended for n-dimensionality if the template types were vectors. Template specializations for 2 and 3-D would assure specific performance, but really any geometry type calculations in n-dimensions would work: intersections of hypercubes and hyperspheres, etc. I'm sure this is beyond the scope of an inaugural library, but still an interesting extension. Because of this possibility, I would argue that vector support (as tuples for the point specifications) is valuable. Kind regards, Richard Newman