On 5/16/07, Ulf Ekström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far I"ve found this one on the wiki (anybody know who wrote this?): >
I posted the one on the wiki
This looks a bit slow, but on the other hand it has support for operations I didn't even know I wanted to do on 2-vectors.
I've changed it since to use slots (stole that idea from somebody else who posted about vector classes on the mailing list) and slots is much much faster on 2.5. I'll probably update that wiki thing with that version when I'm at home. as far as it having lots of vector functions (like projection & interpolation), that is very deliberate. I find it results in highly readable code when doing a lot of vector operations, because the code is much shorter and appropriate math terms are used (cause they are the function names)
looks like it doesn't support vector scaling, which is a bit of a bummer; one reason for me to have 2-vectors is so that I can write
That code actually supports multiplication by a scalar just fine. The typeerror except falls through to scalar operations after trying a vector op with array indexing. I think the version of that code that I actually use now is much clearer about how that happens though (checking for an indexing op is faster than the try/except)
I don't mean to bash the author of that code, but a fast vector implementation which is designed for "physics" would be nice to have.
You're not bashing anyone. I am curious though - what qualifies as "designed for physics"?
The complex number trick was very clever!
That seems very smart, and I imagine it is very fast... I wonder if there is a good way to keep it fast, but also let you mix the vectors with tuples, i.e.: a = vector2(3,5) b = a + (2,2) and have that work/make sense...
