As far as Lilypond is concerned, I don't think most of them _are_ vectors. The points I've used in developing stencils _have_ been points (e.g. bounding box corners) I guess in your work with ps, there may be more vector stuff. I haven't followed it up closely. vec and vec2 are inconsistent with lilypond style. Lilypond style calls for using full english words, not abbreviations. (This used to be in the Standards section of the webpage, but the naming section is now blank, so maybe this convention is deprecated). Perhaps 2d-vector, xy-vector, r2-vector, vector-2d, or vector-xy. Carl
________________________________ From: David Feuer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 4/14/2006 5:21 PM To: Carl D. Sorensen Cc: Jan Nieuwenhuizen; lily-devel Subject: Re: 2D vector code On 4/14/06, Carl D. Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After reviewing what the scheme code would look like if we used complex > numbers, and thinking about the benefits of having nice names for data > types and procedures, I think I agree that we ought to have our own > coordinate pair type and functions. I couldn't find it as a supported > function in SRFI-*. I don't think we ought to use the term vector, > because scheme already has a defined vector type, which is not an R2 > vector. I'd recommend coordinate, point, or coordinate-pair. I've started work implementing 2d vectors as SRFI-9 records. I don't have a great name, but I don't like point because vectors usually don't represent points. coordinate and coordinate-pair seem a little vague. How about vec or vec2? David _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
