Hi Simon,
Thanks for the update. I will continue with my work as planned. I
think the only conflict will be in the include/convert_to_biu.h which
will only be the schematic units section.
Cheers,
Wayne
On 6/25/2019 3:16 PM, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi Wayne,
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at
On 25/06/2019 21:16, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi Wayne,
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:36:36PM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>
>> I guess I should comment on this seeing that I am the project leader. I
>> am fine with refactoring as long as it's an improvement over existing
>> code.
>
> The main
Hi Wayne,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 12:36:36PM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> I guess I should comment on this seeing that I am the project leader. I
> am fine with refactoring as long as it's an improvement over existing
> code.
The main improvement is going to be that we can dump the
I guess I should comment on this seeing that I am the project leader. I
am fine with refactoring as long as it's an improvement over existing
code. In this case, I would say that some refactoring is in order
although I would proceed cautiously with the code in question. OOP does
not necessary
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:54:04PM -0400, Reece R. Pollack wrote:
> Just for discussion, let's assume the replacement for wxPoint is
> named KiPoint. The result of subtracting two KiPoint objects would
> be another object called KiDelta. Adding two KiPoint objects should
> be undefined, and
Hi Tom,
On 23/06/2019 4:10 AM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
On 22/06/2019 17:41, Reece R. Pollack wrote:
While it is true that you can add two point coordinates and multiply by
scalar 0.5 to get the midpoint, this is not true in the general case for
arbitrary scalar multipliers. However,
A specification for substantial changes like this should document
clearly the hierarchy of inheritance, each class's functions and
expected returns. There are some very good references out there on how
to write specs [1][2][3].
This is not to dismiss Reece's suggestion. I think it is a good
Isn't Reece's original post the spec? In summary, the name VECTOR is
confusing and the type structure could be expanded on to offer more
compile time checks. He proposes a KiPoint and KiDelta, and describes
their behavior clearly enough for anyone that does geometry
calculations. What's
On 22/06/2019 17:41, Reece R. Pollack wrote:
>
> While it is true that you can add two point coordinates and multiply by
> scalar 0.5 to get the midpoint, this is not true in the general case for
> arbitrary scalar multipliers. However, calculating the vector distance
> between two points,
On 22/06/2019 16:32, hauptmech wrote:
> After reading through vector2d.h and matrix3x3.h, I agree with Reece
> more or less. There is ambiguity in the word vector, between math
> vectors, spatial vectors, and c++ vectors. Context implies that VECTOR2
> refers math vectors, but then MATRIX3x3 *
On 6/22/19 10:52 AM, Seth Hillbrand wrote:
On 2019-06-21 22:54, Reece R. Pollack wrote:
Doing this now, before we go too far down the path of replacing
wxWidgets types with non-OOB arrays would enhance readability and make
the code more robust. Using VECTOR2I is going the wrong way.
Hi Reece-
On 6/22/19 3:09 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
Adding two points and dividing by two results in a point that is
minimally equidistant from both points (I.e. The midpoint of the line
formed by the points).
While it is true that you can add two point coordinates and multiply by
scalar 0.5 to get the
On 2019-06-21 22:54, Reece R. Pollack wrote:
Doing this now, before we go too far down the path of replacing
wxWidgets types with non-OOB arrays would enhance readability and make
the code more robust. Using VECTOR2I is going the wrong way.
Hi Reece-
Codebase cleaning like you suggest can go
After reading through vector2d.h and matrix3x3.h, I agree with Reece
more or less. There is ambiguity in the word vector, between math
vectors, spatial vectors, and c++ vectors. Context implies that VECTOR2
refers math vectors, but then MATRIX3x3 * VECTOR2 is allowed which
violates
The evolution from untyped variables to weakly-typed variables to
strongly-typed variables to OOP techniques has never been about what is
easiest for the programmer nor fastest running. It's about producing
correct, reliable, maintainable software. The argument that "it'll be
too slow" is
On 22/06/2019 09:09, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> I think the biggest point I am making is that, mathematically, a point
> is identical to a vector from 0,0.
>
Hi Greg & Reece,
This is precisely the reason why we don't have separate point and vector
classes.
Tom
In graphics/CAD packages, a point can be considered a vector from point 0,0.
This is an interpretation that makes sense to me. Adding two points and
dividing by two results in a point that is minimally equidistant from both
points (I.e. The midpoint of the line formed by the points). In
Whoops, hit "send" too soon. "Is a simple array" is obviously incorrect.
My point was the lack of descriptiveness is a problem. The absence of
differentiation between a location and a distance is a missed
opportunity. And the abuse of the type as a loosely-related pair of
values should be
18 matches
Mail list logo
