Re: 4D Geometry

On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 20:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> Chris Traylor <ctraylor(at)phalanyx(dot)com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 15:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd suggest keeping these as separate private types rather
> >> than expecting that a patch to replace the 2D types will be accepted.
>
> > What do you think about making it a configure option, i.e.
> > --enable-4D-geometry (default false)?
>
> Configure options are generally a pain in the neck,

Granted. Especially, if all the ifdefs start making the source hard to
read, but they are a viable compile-time way to allow the user to make
the decision for themselves.

> particularly if they
> cause significant changes in user-visible behavior.
> What's wrong with
> creating separate types instead of changing the behavior of the existing
> ones?

I'd really rather not write a mirror version of every geometric
function, in order to use a private type.

>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Chris

--
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who
are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. -- Mark Twain