> > actually, you were right. this is a problem, since we have changed the > vector math functions (vadd, vmul, etc) to work with various vector lengths. > vnormalize should also work like that if it's not slower than the c version. > > Nice!
I'm still not sure when we'd need the length of a length 6d vector in practice (hyper-cubes?), but for vadd, vmul and the like this will be really useful and vnormalise should then be consistent. Last night I had a sort of "scheme epiphany" BTW, and added up a list by going; (eval (cons + my_list)) ..and started using lambda. Totally off-topic, but I'm happy I'm getting the hang of proper scheming, instead of more or less thinking in curly braces syntax. Yours, Kas.
