 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm seeing a few things in the code that were deprecated, or were partially
replaced. For example, VECTOR is a plain array of three doubles, and there
are global C-like functions to work with them; but there's also a Vector3d
class. Is the intention to eventually port all uses of VECTOR to Vector3d?
(By the way, why does Vector3d have an array instead of just three members?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 08/03/2014 03:29, Nicolas Alvarez nous fit lire :
> (By the way, why does Vector3d have an array instead of just three members?)
>
Just my guess: you cannot loop over members.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I'm seeing a few things in the code that were deprecated, or were
> partially replaced. For example, VECTOR is a plain array of three doubles,
> and there are global C-like functions to work with them; but there's also
> a Vector3d class. Is the intention to eventually port all uses of VECTOR
> to Vector3d?
Oh, I see clipka already did most of this porting in the 'refactor' git
branch :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.03.2014 09:23, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> Le 08/03/2014 03:29, Nicolas Alvarez nous fit lire :
>> (By the way, why does Vector3d have an array instead of just three members?)
>>
> Just my guess: you cannot loop over members.
More to the point, you can't index into members. Some internal code is
optimized in such a way that it needs to give one of the axes special
treatment (e.g. the axis closest to the direction in which a vector is
facing); in such cases, index variables are used for the axes rather
than hard-coded X=0, Y=1 and Z=2.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> I'm seeing a few things in the code that were deprecated, or were
>> partially replaced. For example, VECTOR is a plain array of three
>> doubles, and there are global C-like functions to work with them; but
>> there's also a Vector3d class. Is the intention to eventually port all
>> uses of VECTOR to Vector3d?
>
> Oh, I see clipka already did most of this porting in the 'refactor' git
> branch :)
Are you planning to merge that back to master anytime soon?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.06.2014 05:02, schrieb Nicolas Alvarez:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> I'm seeing a few things in the code that were deprecated, or were
>>> partially replaced. For example, VECTOR is a plain array of three
>>> doubles, and there are global C-like functions to work with them; but
>>> there's also a Vector3d class. Is the intention to eventually port all
>>> uses of VECTOR to Vector3d?
>>
>> Oh, I see clipka already did most of this porting in the 'refactor' git
>> branch :)
>
> Are you planning to merge that back to master anytime soon?
Done that two days ago.
However, the 'refactor' branch is once again ahead already, and I can
now proudly announce that the last remaining references to VECTOR have
finally been squashed yesterday. (Well, kind of - it was actually some
hours after midnight, which leaves me kinda tired today, but that's
perfectly okay :)).
*Hooray!*
Next steps: Getting rid of UV_VECT, and eliminating COLOUR from the
back-end. Both will require major refactoring of the blend map handling,
which might turn out to be a tough nut to crack.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
