Re: Re: About Dr. Geo Developement

Looking at these issues, it seems like a lot of them could be generally 
addressed, along with one of my hopes (the integration of "conic" 
objects), by using a projective system rather than an affine one. that 
would get rid of a lot of case checking, and it would make constructions 
that rely on parallel points "meeting at infinity" possible. I don't 
know the code structure of Dr. Geo well enough to know if this is 
possible, but I think it would be a definite advantage. It also seems 
like a lot of things would be easier in terms of the math involved, by 
simply using matrix multiplications for transformations.
Marcel


Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
> Hello Andrea, 
> 
> Thanks for your feedbacks. You feature wish list, make me think about a
> 1.0.0 release of DrGeo before we move to implementing new stuff which
> could move DrGeo in unstable state.
> 
> Having a TODO list is indeed good, and the DrGeo one is truly non sense
> and it should be clean up, just look at http://www.ofset.org/drgeo/todo.html. 
> 
> However the TODO file in the source distribution is in a better shape.
> 
> Therefore I would like to take the opportunity of your message to work
> on that TODO list first and see how the stuff could be implemented (for
> example your point 1. I see three differents way of doing that, some
> ugly, some other much better but harder)
> 
> Of course writing a TODO list will not make the stuff to appear like
> magic, it will depends on a how much help we can have in that. So the
> TODO list should be shapped in priority order.
> 
> I suggest we take on the TODO list I published several week ago at
> http://www.ofset.org/wiki/index.php/DrGeoTodo
> 
> I will clean up this TODO list, then I will let you add stuff into it.
> 
> Let's start!
> 
> Hilaire
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:59:08 +0000
> Andrea Centomo <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>   > Hello all
>   > 
>   >              I'd like to expose some reflections to help the future 
>   > developement of Dr. Geo. These reflections arose also from 
>   > the use of the cvs version of Kig. As a general consideration
>   > I think that Kig is more suitable than Dr. Geo for the study of
>   > cartesian geometry, especially conics and cubics.
>   > At the same time I think that for geometry without coordinates
>   > and for programming Dr. Geo is the best.
>   > 
>   > 1. like in Kig it could be useful to have in Dr. Geo the possibility
>   >     of checking if three points are collinear, if two lines are perpendicular
>   >     or parallel, if a point belongs to an object. More generally 
>   >     it could be good to improve a "proof apparatus";
>   > 
>   > 2. moreover, as just pointed out, it could be useful to have
>   >     a fill up function to fill with colour a geometrical region 
>   >     of a figure;
>   > 
>   > 3. also leaving to Kig analitic geometry it could be useful 
>   >     to improve the structure of the coordinate grid adding 
>   >     numbers and orientation;
>   > 
>   > 4. I have no precise ideas but it could be good to think
>   >     of stuffs for 3D geometry: is it a nonsense?
>   > 
>   > 5. it could be good to have the possibility of printing directly a figure.
>   > 
>   > Amitiés
>   > Andrea
>   > 
>   > 
>   > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > 
>   > Andrea Centomo
>   > email: [email protected]
>   > 
>   > 


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials
Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of
GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system
administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click