Hi, I'm using v*q a lot, I don't mind the order changing, as long as the compiler would make me fix them all.
Can the intent of v*q or q*v be anything other than rotating a vector? If this is the only meaning, I don't see why we can't have both? regards jp Robert Osfield wrote: > On Nov 13, 2007 4:07 PM, Dorosky, Christopher G > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Just to clarify here, are we changing the way things work, or simply >> adding another operation? >> If we change the way things are working, hopefully it will be reflected >> strongly in the release notes. > > We are talking about changing the Vec * Quat methods to fix them. > These methods aren't something that is widely used so I'd expect not > much in the way of user relies upon these methods nor there currently > broken implementation. There is of course a danger of breaking user > code that relies on it working the wrong way round. One possibility > might be to do an optional build that issue a compile error when ever > a Vec * Quat is found so users can spot where they occur, or perhaps > move the implementation into the .cpp and the emit an optional warning > when this method is invoked. > > Robert. > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > -- This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard. The full disclaimer details can be found at http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html. This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for their support. _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
