sounds good !
Lets decide on an interface for the geometry classes.
Ben's Vector3D is a very good start.
I'll update the 3D geometry classes accordingly.
Javi - do you have any specific needs for the geometry classes or just
the basic needs? Maybe you can send your header file so Daniel can
take it into account writing the VectorD?
On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Daniel Russel wrote:
I can templatize the current Vector3D tonight (actually, I had already
done so a while ago, so I just have to resuscitate it).
On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Javier Ángel Velázquez Muriel wrote:
- Vector2D is already done but I am fine with changes
- I am building a templated version of matrix for 1,2,3D. I didn't
know about matrix3d until yesterday
- Images are going to be 2D matrices and header.
2008/11/12 Daniel Russel <>:
Or vector and matrix can be replaced by a single version templated
on the
dimension. We definitely don't want separate code bases for the 2
and 3D
versions as it will be a pain to keep the set of operations in sync.
On Nov 12, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Keren Lasker wrote:
Javi,
For your 2D geometry classes (Vector2D, Matrix2D ...) - why not
just
using the corresponding 3D classes and keeping Z fixed?
I think it is not too bad in performance and will save you a lot of
coding/debugging time.
Keren.
_______________________________________________
IMP-dev mailing list
https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev