shit, what constaint do i need for generic .Abs()
shit, what constaint do i need for generic .Abs()
Psource.dot.net is your friend
Mi think there isn't one
Mno, i'm just blind
Anone
Agiven that abs just converts any negative value into a positive one
Mthis is my idea for implementing Distance()
Mnow, ideally, would want a choice between float and double here
Mnot sure how that would be implemented
Mbut Numerics Vector3 doesn't support double distance, so this is fine for now
Apublic static TFloat Distance<TFloat>(Vector3<T> value1, Vector3<T> value2) where TFloat : INumber<TFloat>, IFloatingPoint<TFloat>Myou're a genius, petre grifton
Aalso
Ai'd recommend using
TFloat.Sqrt over Math/MathFAi tend to use the generic functions over
Math/MathF nowadays, they're just more convenient and easier, plus no more need to cast to int etc when working with integer typesMi'm gonna add overloads for Dot/DistanceSquared since those are likely to overflow with integer types
Kdistance squared = this dot this which are both valid on integerish types
Kthe distance<tfloat> is a great idea btw
Kand def use TFloat.Sqrt
Kyou might need to use IFloatingPointIEEE754 instead of IFloatingPoint btw
Kone of those inherits from IRootFunctions and the other doesnt, i dont remember which (and the one that does inherits from the other)
M
Mhmm interesting
Ayep you're right only the ieee754 implements IRootFunctions
Kyeah theres a whole hierarchy of the interfaces with varying granularity
Kfor instance ITrigonometricFunctions, IHyperbolicFunctions, etc
Kok cool i was remembering right
Kthe root functions etc are only guaranteed for binary floats where it can be done fast
KKand then theres IBinaryFloatingPointIeee754 which adds bitwise, ispow2, allbitsset, and log2
Pwho's working on what atm
Pthis channel seems exciting all of a sudden
Kidk
Ka long discussion is happening about generic math things
Kin which petre grifon has seemingly solved our issue with length
Ai can recommend not requiring the
IFloatingPointXYZ<> interface directly, instead only requiring IRootFunctions<T> or ITrigonometricFunctions<T> etcAit will make your life easier
Kmhm
Kso theres one last concern and thats the problem of converting
Kwhich i dont think we have an easy generic constraint for
Aas in casting from one
VectorX<T> type to another VectorX<T> type?Awith a different type for
Twe need to manually specialize those anyway seeing as you can't have variable Ts on implicit operators
Kwait hang on
Ptbh i'm really quite keen on the extension method approach, it probably makes sense to only require on the type itself the interface containing +-*/
Aproblem solved
Kyeah i had forgotten about CreateChecked
ACreateChecked is your best friendAi forgot stuff like
float.CreateChecked existed in my older generic math implementationsAso i used
Convert.ChangeType or whatever the similar function is called