In article <470df2c7$1@news.povray.org>, 
fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe says...

> > Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> >> But this could be handled in SDL, no ?
> > 
> >   The main problem is that this "store all transformations in an array
> > inside the object" is a hard-coded solution which makes no sense. It
> > needlessly fixes this "problem" (which really isn't a problem at all,
> > which is something they just cannot seem to comprehend) with one single
> > hard-coded solution. If someone would like to use a different approach
> > then the internal array would be a completely useless waste of memory.
> > 
> >   Let's assume someone is implementing something where he really wants,
> > for whatever reason, to store all the individual transformations in a
> > data structure (instead of simply executing a series of commands which
> > will accumulate the transformations into a single transformation matrix
).
> > What happens if the data structure he wants to use is a list? What if h
e
> > wants to have *several* data structures containing alternative sets of
> > transformations? What if he wants the transformations in a binary tree?
> > He will have to implement these solutions in SDL, and the transformatio
n
> > array inside the object will be a useless waste of memory.
> 
> That's what I meant : implement the "transformation history" using SDL.
> 
> 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.

> Objects could even have some kind of "extended data" that could be attach
ed
> to them, and be used as the user wishes. (it would help things like
> parent-chlid relations between objects)
> 
> >   If someone really wants to use an array to store individual transform
ations
> > then he can do so. However, most importantly, he is not *forced* to do 
so
> > if he doesn't want to.
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Fabien.
> 
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. 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.


-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message