> It should save some work to define these objects in terms of geometric > algebra.
While I fully agree with this, you might find you'll have a hard time convincing other people of this. Many people are so locked into the traditional concepts of linear algebra that a geometric library without matrices (to put it bluntly) won't be very useful to many people. > How about Jaap Suter's Geometric Algebra library? > http://jaapsuter.com/ If, and only if, people agree that Geometric (or Clifford) Algebra is the way to go, then my library might be a good starting point. I am still working on a few issues and adding new functionality (most notably compile-time versions of the Clifford operators for gradelists, so I can put a proper operator overloading scheme in place), but the benchmarks I have done so far prove that my library is the fastest of the few Geometric Algebra libraries around. One of the things I've done is port the raytracer (http://carol.wins.uva.nl/~fontijne/raytracer/) made by Daniel Fontijne, and used as a benchmark for Gaigen and Clu. I will be releasing a paper with all the details somewhere about 6 weeks from now. I originally planned to have it done before that, but my work is taking up too much time at the moment. If anybody has any questions about my library, I would be glad to help out. I'm using it a lot myself and it has been very useful so far. Cheers, Jaap Suter _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost