On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 12:57:57PM +1000, David Hodson wrote:
>Instead of just augmenting rotation, why not
>provide a 2D transform, with rotate, scale, and shift in a single op?

Hmmm... That wouldn't be too stupid... Isn't this where all the nice
matrix multiplication maths comes in and helps us speed-wise? Or is it
only cost-effective for 3D points?

/* Steinar */
Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/

Reply via email to