Can I "templatize" MathDefs?

Everything about the development of Urho3D.

Re: Can I "templatize" MathDefs?

PostPosted by cadaver » 11 Aug 2016, 17:45

Practically how it could work, and how I'd accept it would be to have template classes which you can alternatively use for your own purposes, while the engine is locked to Vector3<float>. And to not break the existing API it would be preferable that Vector3<float> was still called Vector3, while the template type would be called something else. Getting rid of separate IntVector2 would be smart if it worked without trouble in practice (though again, to not break API it could still be called IntVector2 through a typedef)
User avatar
Urho3D author
Urho3D author
Posts: 1802
Joined: 16 Jan 2014, 14:52
Location: Finland

Re: Can I "templatize" MathDefs?

PostPosted by TheComet » 15 Aug 2016, 21:46

Stinkfist wrote:Templatized vector and matrix classes would be tricky for script bindings.

Yeah I noticed that too when I tried.
I'm a non-binary non-cis sexually fluid cephalopod identifying genderqueer mocha frappé latte
User avatar
Active user
Active user
Posts: 122
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 14:07
Location: Germany


Return to Developer Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests