Looking at the set of packages specified in that proposal doc, I don't
think the choice of a package to vendor is terribly complex.


The two above are the same (one was merged into the other). And it is even
using x/image/math/f32 already.

azul3d.org/lmath.v1 -- This package is in a repository called azul3d-legacy
and doesn't seem like it is maintained.

github.com/ungerik/go3d -- This one could work.

github.com/skelterjohn/geom -- This one is using float64 and also looks
potentially unmaintained.

github.com/spate/vectormath -- The API and struct definitions on this one
don't look right. Also potentially unmaintained.

So really I think the choice is between two libraries and one is using the
unified types...

But if crawshaw is the man in the know then, yes, let's wait to hear what
his input is.
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:18:25 AM UTC-7, Nigel Tao wrote:

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Bryan Matsuo <bryan....@gmail.com
<javascript:>> wrote:
That seems like a valid reason to avoid an internal package. But I would
still question why not vendor a third-party package?
Again, crawshaw is probably the best person to answer that, as IIRC he
wrote the original x/mobile f32 package, but
https://golang.org/cl/141440043 dates from September 2014, before
vendoring landed (experimentally) in Go 1.5 (August 2015), let alone
having to decide exactly which third party package to vendor.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 16 of 17 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupgolang-dev @
postedMar 29, '16 at 3:30p
activeMar 31, '16 at 12:58p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase