W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: comments on Matrix

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:22:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDDSyfY9q9ALtUPWtG=V=9g-=bMppJVqQ6D0PD-+Ur7ymw@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Maybe the 2D'ness of a matrix can be implied by its construction and if
>> you
>> > apply 2d or 3d matrices or operations to it?
>> I suspect this would be reasonable.  You'd check for explicit 0s in
>> the correct indexes at construction time, and then carry around a flag
>> for whether it's 2d or not, which gets unset as soon as you perform a
>> 3d operation.
> If we start carrying around internal state based on operations that have
> happened on the objects values won't round-trip and two matrices with
> identical values will return different answers, which I think will be very
> surprising for users.

That should never happen.
Doing a 2d operation on 2 2d matrices and then converting the result to 3D
should be the same as doing that operation on 2 3D matrices.
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 02:23:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:49 UTC