Dear Fortraneers,

I'am writing a geometry package somewhat oriented to CAD-CAM. It's a
pet project, rewriting and hopefully extending what I did for work
(sheet metal) some 30 years ago (in C, because C was on the "cool" side
those days - and I do not have the sources).
The point is that in surface/solid modeling 3-D is a must, whereas for
sheet metal 2-D is all what is needed. So I started writing some code
around separate types for 2d and 3d, say
type Point_2d
real :: x, y
..
and
type Point_3d
real :: x, y, z
..
Then, there are rational point (real :: x, y, w and real :: x, y, z, w)

Now, I'm realizing I'm writing a lot of repetitive code for the 2
separate types (or 4 when including rationals) - that should be tested, too.
I would like to avoid this. Goal is to keep expressivity minimizing code.

Other possibilities
type, extends(Point_2d) :: Point_3d
real z
and similar extensions for 2d and 3d rationals
or
type Point
real x, y, z with z always present, and may be set to a guard
value, say zero, to warn that it's 2-d
or
type Point
real :: coordinates(3) ! 1 is x, 2 is y 3 is z set to zero to mark 2d
or
type Point
real, allocatable :: coordinates(:)
with size(coordinates) discriminating between 2d and 3d (but what
happens when there are 2d rationals and 3d "normal" - size is always 3)

Mantyla in its text on solid modeling simply uses a dimension(4) array
for vector/point coordinates.
Piegl et al in their NURBS book use always 3d rationals with guard
values to discriminate 2d and non-rational case.
De Boor in its B-spline package stores curve control points in arrays,
one for each coordinate, and similar approach is in the code
accompanying the Farin's book.

May be there are many other possibilities I do not see at this moment.

Do you have suggestions in order to minimize code repetition ?

Thanks in advance
Gigi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 12:51:51 PM UTC+1, GianLuigi Piacentini wrote:

Dear Fortraneers,

I'am writing a geometry package somewhat oriented to CAD-CAM. It's a
pet project, rewriting and hopefully extending what I did for work
(sheet metal) some 30 years ago (in C, because C was on the "cool" side those days - and I do not have the sources).
The point is that in surface/solid modeling 3-D is a must, whereas for
sheet metal 2-D is all what is needed. So I started writing some code
around separate types for 2d and 3d, say
type Point_2d
real :: x, y
..
and
type Point_3d
real :: x, y, z
..
Then, there are rational point (real :: x, y, w and real :: x, y, z, w)

Now, I'm realizing I'm writing a lot of repetitive code for the 2
separate types (or 4 when including rationals) - that should be tested, too. I would like to avoid this. Goal is to keep expressivity minimizing code.

Other possibilities
type, extends(Point_2d) :: Point_3d
real z
and similar extensions for 2d and 3d rationals
or
type Point
real x, y, z with z always present, and may be set to a guard
value, say zero, to warn that it's 2-d
or
type Point
real :: coordinates(3) ! 1 is x, 2 is y 3 is z set to zero to mark 2d
or
type Point
real, allocatable :: coordinates(:)
with size(coordinates) discriminating between 2d and 3d (but what
happens when there are 2d rationals and 3d "normal" - size is always 3)

Mantyla in its text on solid modeling simply uses a dimension(4) array
for vector/point coordinates.
Piegl et al in their NURBS book use always 3d rationals with guard
values to discriminate 2d and non-rational case.
De Boor in its B-spline package stores curve control points in arrays,
one for each coordinate, and similar approach is in the code
accompanying the Farin's book.

May be there are many other possibilities I do not see at this moment.

Do you have suggestions in order to minimize code repetition ?

Thanks in advance
Gigi

Instead of a component coordinates(3) or an allocatable component, you may consider to use parametrised types. Then a len parameter can set the dimension.

Alternatively, a four-dimensional space is often used to turn affine operations (rotation, reflection, translation) into a matrix operation. The fourth coordinate is set to 1, so that it plays a role in the translation part. For 2D applications you could
set the third coordinate to 1 as well and let the entries in the transformation matrix follow an analoguous pattern.

Just a few suggestions, mind you.

Regards,

Arjen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/11/21 13:38, Arjen Markus wrote:

On Sunday, November 7, 2021 at 12:51:51 PM UTC+1, GianLuigi Piacentini wrote:

Dear Fortraneers,

I'am writing a geometry package somewhat oriented to CAD-CAM. It's a
pet project, rewriting and hopefully extending what I did for work
(sheet metal) some 30 years ago (in C, because C was on the "cool" side
those days - and I do not have the sources).
The point is that in surface/solid modeling 3-D is a must, whereas for
sheet metal 2-D is all what is needed. So I started writing some code
around separate types for 2d and 3d, say
type Point_2d
real :: x, y
..
and
type Point_3d
real :: x, y, z
..
Then, there are rational point (real :: x, y, w and real :: x, y, z, w)

Now, I'm realizing I'm writing a lot of repetitive code for the 2
separate types (or 4 when including rationals) - that should be tested, too. >> I would like to avoid this. Goal is to keep expressivity minimizing code.

...

Instead of a component coordinates(3) or an allocatable component, you may consider to use parametrised types. Then a len parameter can set the dimension.

Could you please elaborate more on this subject ?
My objective is to write and test less code is possible (so for example,
write (and test) a single procedure instead of, may be "project_2d_point_onto_2d_line", and "project_3d_point_onto_3d_line").

Alternatively, a four-dimensional space is often used to turn affine operations (rotation, reflection, translation) into a matrix operation. The fourth coordinate is set to 1, so that it plays a role in the translation part. For 2D applications you

could set the third coordinate to 1 as well and let the entries in the transformation matrix follow an analoguous pattern.
This "trick" is reported in any book on the subject, and is what I
internally did when transforming entities.

Just a few suggestions, mind you.

Regards,

Arjen

Thanks
Gigi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)