>> Do try to get it into OOP when you have some (long, lol) spare
>> moments. Matrices, vectors etc really do very well in an OOP
>> environment.
>> Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
>> Pencil art : http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>> Car simulation: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>Well, I'd say that for matrices and vectors the operator overloading
>possibility is much more important than objects. However, if you have an
>elegant way of treating them as objects, I'd love to hear more about it.
overloading to get cross and dot products I don't like very much,
because everyone seems to use different operators (and using * for
either cross or dot both seem reason in the end for confusion).
First, the fact that vectors etc contain the members and some
functions to operate upon (like matrix.RotateX(float angle)) already
works good enough for me to recommend it.
Second, the first version I hacked together on vectors used a lot of
friend functions with overloaded operators. But it seems you can bring
these seemingly static (outside) functions inside the class, like
DVector3& operator*=(const dfloat &s);
I'm still finding out nice ways that are fast and don't use stack
copies so much, as this seems a waste of CPU.
Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art : http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Car simulation: http://www.racesimcentral.net/