Hi All,
On 02/26/2010 02:05 PM, Carsten Neumann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> creating a matrix from 3 or 4 Vec3 leaves the element [3][3] as 0. I can
> see an argument for this when using the 4 Vec3 version [1], but when
> using just 3 Vec3 this seems to be a bug.
> For many uses it would probably also be convenient to change the 4
> argument c'tor, but I'm less certain about that.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Cheers,
> Carsten
>
> [1] it is strictly what the user asked for given that a Vec3 is treated
> as having w=0 (although since there is no c'tor taking Vec4 arguments
> the user might not be able to express what she wanted in the first
> place...)
my $.02 (based on some discussion we had at lunch):
I would propose to
- remove the 4 V3 constructor
- add a 4 V4 constructor
- change the 3 V3 constructor to set [3][3] to 1
- add a 3 V3 + 1 P3 constructor that sets [3][3] to 1
Anybody see a reason not to do that?
Yours
Dirk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensg-core mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
