Hi all
Aurelien :
GML is effectively the library i regularly look/use when a mathematics
feature is missing in osg,
so take idea from it, specially the half float, will save a lot of work
from me. Thanks
Robert:
About what we could add
this is really usefull,
- operator + - * / += -= *= /= (value_type)
- operator + - += -= (vec_type)
- operator -() for signed type
- componentMultiply, componentDivide
any user want a good operator support for fundamental type
this is convenient method
- swizzle, this meen 256 possible functions for Vec4, 512 possible
functions for xyzw and rgba combinaison
- constructor like in GLSL : Vec4(Vec2, Vec2) or Vec4(float, Vec2, float)
or Vec4(float, Vec3),
if this feature are hot implemented, osg user will not say "aarrrggg, where
is the function !!!"
About why it's important that we have this additional functionality
I read/hear some programming rules, One well know is "release early,
release often"
another I think good is 'library implement all possible feature, executable
implement required feature".
This is not the exact sentence, i can't find it on google, but this is the
idea.
This is why I would like to have a complete vec{2,3,4} implementation.
Why I want to add all available opengl feature in OSG.
even if I don't use/need this feature today.
Robert, Aurelien, other, what it your opinion about this ?
Cheers
David
2013/6/13 Robert Osfield <[email protected]>
> Hi David et. al,
>
> On 12 June 2013 18:52, David Callu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > About Vec{2,3,4]{b,s,i,ub,us,ub}, I think we need to do a code
> harmonisation
> > of all this header to provide
> > - operator + - * / += -= *= /= (value_type)
> > - operator + - += -= (vec_type)
> > - operator -() for signed type
> > - componentMultiply, componentDivide
> >
> > - swizzle, this meen 256 possible functions for Vec4, 512 possible
> functions
> > for xyzw and rgba combinaison
> > - constructor like in GLSL : Vec4(Vec2, Vec2) or Vec4(float, Vec2,
> float)
> > or Vec4(float, Vec3),
> >
> >
> > - use of template
> >
> > thoughts ?
>
> My overriding thought is "implement what we actually need, not what we
> think we might need."
>
> So if there is something specific that is missing that people really
> need then I think it would be appropriate to add, if it's a
> convenience method that a few people might find useful then I don't
> believe the extra code is justified, the greater the additional
> interface and implementation code the greater the bar that the code
> has to jump over to justify itself.
>
> So far most of the discussion looks to be about what we could add
> rather than why it's important that we have this additional
> functionality.
>
> Cheers,
> Robert.
> _______________________________________________
> osg-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
>
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
