On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 12:57:57PM +1000, David Hodson wrote: >Instead of just augmenting rotation, why not >provide a 2D transform, with rotate, scale, and shift in a single op? Hmmm... That wouldn't be too stupid... Isn't this where all the nice matrix multiplication maths comes in and helps us speed-wise? Or is it only cost-effective for 3D points? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/sneeze/
