In article <3C4### [at] comtradeee>,
 Vahur Krouverk <vkr### [at] comtradeee> wrote:

> Your syntax supports only vectors,

Scalars and vectors, actually. Though currently the expression engine 
uses the 3D vector code for both.


> but if you are going to support transformations, then perhaps it 
> would be better to distinguish points, vectors and normals (as they 
> transform differently)? 

Only the math is different. The library will eventually include 
functions for point and normal manipulation, as well as transformation 
objects.


> If your language will allow 'overridden' functions,

I think you mean "overloaded" functions...this is something I've been 
thinking of, but it isn't implemented (yet). Of course, parameters 
aren't fully implemented yet either...


> then perhaps it could get away with 1 function (if there is 
> possibility to recognize, which type was given as actual parameter), 
> but better would be to use 3 different functions, as it improves 
> readability and allows to avoid or catch errors (IMO).

There will be separate transformation functions for points, vectors, and 
normals.

-- 
 -- 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>

Post a reply to this message