From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-27 06:56:28
Dave Abrahams <abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >.
>
Thanks, Dave... but you are kidding, aren.
>
...and indeed a point *is* a delta - it is just a distance from the plane's
origin (0, 0) to some other place on the plane. So now I don't think that
returning a point from such methods as 'extent' is counter-intuitive or
discouraging... and taking other arguments such as a non-consistence between
whole objects' operations and operations on their x- and y- parts, I am
going to sink 'delta' class unless someone will prove its usefulness..
In fact, we wouldn't lose much - probably only the following rectangle's
constructor needs to be removed:
rectangle( const point_type& top_left, const delta_type& extent );
And the 'delta' class itself, of course ;) - it will be replaced by 'point'
in all other methods.
So in that case we would actually simplify the library - which is good, I
think..
> 4. We should call the namespace within boost geometry2d. We sure don't
want
> to rule out 3D someday ;)
>
Good point, indeed ;)
- Alexy
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk