turkeyman at gmail.com
Mon Feb 6 04:43:58 PST 2012
On 6 February 2012 10:49, a <a at a.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 4 February 2012 at 23:15:17 UTC, Manu wrote:
> First criticism I expect is for many to insist on a class-style vector
>> library, which I personally think has no place as a low level, portable
>> Everyone has a different idea of what the perfect vector lib should look
>> like, and it tends to change significantly with respect to its
>> I feel this flat API is easier to implement, maintain, and understand, and
>> I expect the most common use of this lib will be in the back end of
>> own vector/matrix/linear algebra libs that suit their apps.
>> My key concern is with my function names... should I be worried about name
>> collisions in such a low level lib? I already shadow a lot of standard
>> float functions...
>> I prefer them abbreviated in this (fairly standard) way, keeps lines of
>> code short and compact. It should be particularly familiar to anyone who
>> has written shaders and such.
> I prefer the flat API and short names too.
> Opinions? Shall I continue as planned?
> Looks nice. Please do continue :)
> You have only run this on a 32 bit machine, right? Cause I tried to
> compile this simple example and got some errors about converting ulong to
True, I have only been working in x86 GDC so far, but I just wanted to get
feedback about my approach and API design at this point.
It seems there are no serious objections, I'll continue as is. I have an
ARM compiler too now, so I'll be implementing/testing against that as
> auto testfun(float4 a, float4 b)
> return swizzle!("yxwz")(a);
> It compiles if I do this changes:
> < foreach(i; 0..N)
>> foreach(int i; 0..N)
> < int i = countUntil(s, swizzleKey);
>> int i = cast(int)countUntil(s,
> < foreach(j, c; s) // find the
> offset of the ---
>> foreach(int j, c; s) // find the
>> offset of the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Digitalmars-d