Re: Ideas on the future of Quesa.

[Roger H. <rog...@mi...>]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2004, at 06:38  pm, James W. Walker wrote:

> "Lane Roathe" <la...@if...> wrote:
>
>> Why? Any operation that you would want to overload should be able to
>> become an inlined function call just as easily. The actual operation 
>> code
>> remains nearly identical. (at least in my experience.)
>>
>>> From someone who's still trying to get the latest builds to work in 
>>> my
>> products, I'd rather see easily read/understood/maintainable code. The
>> more programmers who can read the code and _really_ understand what's
>> happening the more contributions to that code base you will get.
>
> Using overloaded operators for vector addition and scalar-times-vector 
> multiplication results in code that is closer to mathematical 
> notation, which to me makes it easier to read. Multiplication of 
> vectors is more doubtful, since math has dot and cross products while 
> C++ has only one * operator.
>

Yes, I have functions called DotProduct which returns a float and 
CrossProduct which return a vector.
Operator * works on a vector and a float, a point and a float,a vector 
and a matrix or two matrices, in
both 2D and 3D. Operators + and - work of a pair of vectors, a point 
and a vector (returning a point)
or for + only a vector and a point as vector - point does not really 
make sense. For operator - there
is also one which takes two points and returns a vector. The unary - 
operator works on vectors and
point though I would be happy to ditch the point one as it is a bit 
dodgy mathematically, and you can
do the same thing by multiplying by -1 anyway.