if we can implement something in terms of the generic maths interfaces without implementing the func

if we can implement something in terms of the generic maths interfaces without implementing the functions exposed by any of the generic maths interfaces ourselves (a la Scalar.BaseOps) then i'm happy with it being in Silk.NET.Maths

Maxine•10/21/23, 8:58 PM

and Utf8.TryWrite checks itself

Maxine•10/21/23, 8:58 PM

if i added a check there, it would be a duplicate

Maxine•10/21/23, 8:58 PM

PPerksey if we can implement something in terms of the generic maths interfaces without i...

Maxine•10/21/23, 8:59 PM

this is definitely going way over my head

PerkseyOP•10/21/23, 8:59 PM

that's about as clear as i can make it

MMaxine if i added a check there, it would be a duplicate

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:00 PM

ah ok cool

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:00 PM

kai if you understand what he means, please explain it to me in baby words

MMaxine so yes you can do LengthSquared<sbyte>

Kai•10/21/23, 9:00 PM

static T LengthSquared<T>(this Vector3<T> vec) where T : INumber<T>, IFloatingPoint<T>;
???

KKai static T LengthSquared<T>(this Vector3<T> vec) where T : INumber<T>, IFloatingPo...

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:00 PM

there is more than one of those!

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:01 PM

check Vector3<T>

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:01 PM

public readonly TReturn LengthSquared<TReturn>() where TReturn : INumber<TReturn>public readonly TReturn LengthSquared<TReturn>() where TReturn : INumber<TReturn>

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:01 PM

yeah

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:01 PM

this is an instance method (but it can be an extension method)

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:01 PM

its a shortcut where TReturn and T are the same

MMaxine this is definitely going way over my head

PerkseyOP•10/21/23, 9:02 PM

basically if ever we find ourselves constrained by the generic maths constraints, then we probably shouldn't be working to allow whatever you're trying to do

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:02 PM

hm.

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:02 PM

what is that comment about, though?

Kai•10/21/23, 9:03 PM

I don't really get why there's two?
Why is the one without a return arg restricted to floating point? Seems like extra typing for user for nothing?

KKai I don't really get why there's two? Why is the one without a return arg restrict...

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:03 PM

because there is no use of calling Length<T> if the result is not a decimal

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

the one without a result is a shortcut if T is already floating

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

and you just want to use that

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

and because there is no square root for integers

MMaxine what is that comment about, though?

PerkseyOP•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

basically no rules were defined for generic maths when Silk.NET.Maths when it was created, and we made no attempt to define them, instead allowing everything in the absence of rules set by an ecosystem authority (a la .NET API Review).
this led to us defining our own Add, Subtract, etc in Scalar.BaseOps, and implementing every algorithm under the sun in terms of those fully generalised BaseOps regardless of whether its correct, makes sense, or would yield the correct results for a given type.

Kai•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

On length I understand the roots interface, but on that and on square I don't get the floating point arg

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

the one with a result could be like Vector3<int>.Length<float>()Vector3<int>.Length<float>()

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

oh yeah the static lengthsquared has the float bit

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

idk why

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

might be a mistake

PPerksey basically no rules were defined for generic maths when Silk.NET.Maths when it wa...

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:04 PM

alright
so are you for or against Vector3<int>?

PerkseyOP•10/21/23, 9:05 PM

i am against not looking at it at an individual operation level

Kai•10/21/23, 9:05 PM

Like imo we need a really good argument for restricting T beyond what's required for the implementation

KKai On length I understand the roots interface, but on that and on square I don't ge...

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:05 PM

on square, it's because it's a likely overflow

Kai•10/21/23, 9:05 PM

But so is add...

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:05 PM

not really?

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:05 PM

that shouldnt be a generic restriction though

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:05 PM

like thats an at your own risk thing

PerkseyOP•10/21/23, 9:05 PM

dot product can be implemented for int, so LengthSquared can be implemented for int, but the BCL has decided we should not be able to square root an int, so we should not implement length

Kai•10/21/23, 9:06 PM

Or multiply? The argument is that squaring a byte is likely to overflow?

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:06 PM

ok, so pick one

both LengthSquared<T> and LengthSquared<T, TReturn>
only LengthSquared<T>

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:06 PM

both but no type restriction, because the treturn version can be good to implement length with

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

is my vote

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

okay

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

i'm just asking because i don't want the proposal to have 8000 combinations

PPerksey dot product can be implemented for int, so LengthSquared can be implemented for ...

PerkseyOP•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

now, i'm not against figuring out an API that allows the user to specify that they want an implicit upcast/downcast for a given operation, as this is what we did for some ops in some cases without the user knowing, but this way it codifies intent.

Maxine•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

noted

Kai•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

I like that I can specify the return type, but I don't understand restricting to floating point

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

yeah

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

that restriction makes no sense to me either

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:07 PM

for the squared

khitiara•10/21/23, 9:08 PM

because i could just as easily do a Vector3<short> and the do .LengthSquared<long>.LengthSquared<long>

if we can implement something in terms of the generic maths interfaces without implementing the func

Similar Threads

Similar Threads

Similar Threads