Re: [grt-talk] Picking targets. Was: Some suggestions.

[Nikodemus Siivola]

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Anton N. Mescheryakov wrote:

> >you provided seem to favor terseness instead of clarity: it's by no means
> >obious to me what OP3* does and how it's supposed to be used. But it's

The problem above remains. Vector code is something so basic,
that *anyone* should be able to check that it's correct without having to
wrap their minds around op & company.

I think a good test of an operators maintainability is how namable it is?
If you can both give it a short memonic name and and a long descriptive
name it's probably ok.

What would be the long descriptive name for op3* ? Something like
triple-add would be another thing altogather.

> a) Usage of structures instead of vectors is evil;

We'll just have to disagree on this one. Lisps in general are much better
unboxing things inside structs that vectors, and vector match with float
boxing is just unacceptable.

> b) Writing a lot of similar things is COBOL feature, not LISP.

Yeah. But indecipherable operators are never a feature, and don't generally
make maintenance any easier.

> OK, I'll try to do something with pattern projection (_mapping_ or
> whatever you call it) and probably bounding volumes, if nobody is
> already in it.

Bounding is progressing as part of octrees, so you are likely to duplicate
a lot of effort. Do I understand you correctly if you refer by pattern
projection to image maps and uv-mapping? Cool.

> type. Of course, I can live with it, but it will be better if you
> somewhat advocate employment of structures for things like 3D vectors or
> RGB colors.

Show me a benchmark that I can believe. Or use use alternative
implementation and compare it side by side with the current one.

By the way, patches are best sent as context diffs. That way they can
(hopefully) be applied against modified source trees. I'll check yours out
when I have the time, but I'm not really too wild about op3. Maybe I'm just
being boneheaded, so I'll give it a little time to sink in.

Cheers,

  -- Nikodemus