Small Vectors Proposal

[Mikola Lysenko]

Frits van Bommel wrote:
> Mikola Lysenko wrote:
>> All new vector types are pass-by-value, and may be used in combination 
>> with any number of other types.  The following expressions would all 
>> be valid:
>>
> [snip 2 others]
>> char[][ucent4] c;
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Note that the only two comparison operators allowed on vectors are == 
>> and !=.  The problem with <, >, etc. is that there is no commonly 
>> agreed upon definition for such things.  Therefore the operators are 
>> omitted to avoid confusion.
>>
>> int2(1, 2) == int2(1, 2);        //ok, evaluates to true
>> float3(1, 0, 0) < float3(0, 0, 1);    // error, < is undefined for 
>> vectors
> 
> These two sections are contradictory: associative arrays need an 
> ordering to be defined on the key type.
> How about a simple lexicographical order, with two non-equal vectors (of 
> the same dimensionality) comparing as their first non-equal component 
> would? (That's how comparisons work for arrays IIRC)
> 
> 
> Other than that I don't see any obvious problems with it.

Hmm...  Fair enough.  We could define ordering on a per component level 
arbitrarily so associative arrays work.  I could see this being 
confusing in some situations, but it would be worth it in order to make 
the types consistent.  Therefore:

float3(x, y, z) < float3(a, b, c)

would translate too:

(x < a) ? true : ((y < b) ? true : (z < c))