Re: Data structures

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Anthony Mallet wrote:

> Stramigioli, S wrote :
> | I agree 100% and I do believe that this is the VERY first step to be taken:
> | define classes of data structures and their form:
> |
> | Positions
> |  - Point
> |  - Rigid Body
> |    - (Bi)Quaternions
> |    - SE(3)
> |    - ....
> |  - Mechanisms
> |    ......
> | Velocities
> |  - Point
> |  - Rigid Bosy
>
> The sad thing is that it implies a centralized description, that has to
> be shared among every user. We know that maintaining such centralized
> information is a very difficult task.
> Moreover, there's a performance issue since there's often a tradeoff
> between efficiency and generality...
>

Maybe the idea from computer networking (and other areas) could be
used: define a neutral `basic' representation, and mappings to and
from it for any other representation that one uses (cf `hosttonetwork'
and `networktohost' for socket programming).

There are other examples in the Open Source world where this trade off
has been solved (?): Gnome use XML tools to let everybody use its own
configuration settings (and that's a very complex set of
settings!);...

I agree that it will be difficult, but is there an alternative?

Herman
-- 
"I decry the current tendency to seek patents on algorithms. There are
 better ways to earn a living than to prevent other people from making
 use of one's contributions to computer science."  D.E. Knuth, TAoCP 3