Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> > If the SDL is powerful enough, it could even be automatic : each time
> > something tranforms an object, an "event" mechanism adds the transform
> > to the history.
> > 
> Gah!! This is exactly what I am talking about. And everyone else is 
> instead saying, "Gosh, this is silly, why not just store every single 
> transform some place else, so it takes up even more memory, then apply 
> them all over again anyway, not from the history, but from a bunch of 
> arrays?" Feel like I am talking to a wall here.

  What the heck do you need a "transformation history" for? You don't need
it currently, nor you need it in the future SDL either. Why would it be
any useful?

  The "transformation history" is in the SDL code you write. Why do you
need to store it somewhere else as well? That's just a completely useless
waste of memory.

> Look, the only reason I am suggesting it is so that when you create an 
> object the current "history" or "state" is accessible, so you can look 
> at it, or change it.

  Why do you need to "look at it" and "change it"? The transformations
are already in the SDL code you write. Just write them so that they
change appropriately at each frame. I just can't see what the heck is
the problem.

> Sigh.. I have a feeling people are just so stuck on 
> the idea of how they do things "now" that they just don't get why the 
> solutions being proposed are either a) worse than mine, or b) make no 
> sense in an SDL that doesn't work *exactly* like the way it does now.

  There's a reason why there are no "transformation arrays" in the current
SDL. The reason is that they are not needed. They would only be a completely
useless waste of space.

  And once again, you would be hard-coding one specific solution. That is
not the way to go. Hard-coding solutions is bad programming.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message