In article <4710eb4d$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Why? Its going to cost you more memory to store 20 transforms for an IK
 
> > chain, and all changes needed for them, in separate arrays, than it wil
l 
> > to store 20 transforms in the object, then apply only 3-4 changes from
 
> > "your" array, which are needed to change the specific parts that are 
> > needed.
> 
> Then store it as two arrays.
> 
> The only difference is whether one of the arrays is "in the object" 
> being transformed or not.
> 
> What's the semantic difference between having an array pointer 
> associated with each object to store transforms and having an array 
> indexed by object whose values are arrays of transforms?
> 

No semantic difference, just associative. And when you are dealing with 
objects that is often more important than semantics. Its why you don't 
usually find most OOP languages placing the arrays of icons/objects or 
enumerations that *belong* to them in separate arrays and "force" the 
coder to add code like:

ondraw() {
  for each icon in some_external_array
    draw(icon);
}

instead of:

ondraw() {
  for each icon in self.icon_array
    draw(icon);
}

Semantically they are **identical**, associatively they are 
**completely** different.

-- 
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