RE: 2D vector code

[Carl D. Sorensen]

As far as Lilypond is concerned, I don't think most of them _are_ vectors.  The 
points I've used in developing stencils _have_ been points (e.g. bounding box 
corners)  I guess in your work with ps, there may be more vector stuff.  I 
haven't followed it up closely.
 
vec and vec2 are inconsistent with lilypond style.  Lilypond style calls for 
using full english words, not abbreviations.  (This used to be in the Standards 
section of the webpage, but the naming section is now blank, so maybe this 
convention is deprecated).
 
Perhaps 2d-vector, xy-vector, r2-vector, vector-2d, or vector-xy.
 
Carl

________________________________

From: David Feuer [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Fri 4/14/2006 5:21 PM
To: Carl D. Sorensen
Cc: Jan Nieuwenhuizen; lily-devel
Subject: Re: 2D vector code



On 4/14/06, Carl D. Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:

>
> After reviewing what the scheme code would look like if we used complex
> numbers, and thinking about the benefits of having nice names for data
> types and procedures, I think I agree that we ought to have our own
> coordinate pair type and functions.  I couldn't find it as a supported
> function in SRFI-*.  I don't think we ought to use the term vector,
> because scheme already has a defined vector type, which is not an R2
> vector.  I'd recommend coordinate, point, or coordinate-pair.

I've started work implementing 2d vectors as SRFI-9 records.  I don't
have a great name, but I don't like point because vectors usually
don't represent points.  coordinate and coordinate-pair seem a little
vague.  How about vec or vec2?

David