Hi Rob,
Of course, we don't need to make osg::Matrix::transpose() part of the public API, if we don't want to.
I personally think there's nothing *wrong* with having a transpose() method, it's just that if the existing M*V would have fit your use case then it would have avoided duplicating functionality and having 2 ways of doing things, which would potentially confuse new users. Though you may argue that *not* having a transpose() method and relying on the M*V might confuse them more, given that it's more obscure and hard to understand at a glance and we need a wiki page to explain its use.
So I would be open to adding transpose(), and while you're at it, perhaps the doxygen comment for transpose() can mention that when transforming normals and planes you can use M*V to avoid extra operations involved in an explicit transpose, and the doxygen comment for the M*V operator can also mention the particular cases where this is useful and not to confuse it with the regular V*M operator...
Thanks, J-S -- ______________________________________________________ Jean-Sebastien Guay [email protected] http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
