Quote:Original post by PolGraphic
One more thing - about HWND structure. Should I cast it to sth (long? not pretty nice when sb want to use 64-bit code...), or just include windows.h inside #ifdef WINDOWS?

HWND is merely a pointer to a random structure:

#define DECLARE_HANDLE(name) struct name##__ { int unused; }; typedef struct name##__ *nameDECLARE_HANDLE(HWND)

Therefore you could make it a void pointer, although including windows.h is not a big deal.

I wrote alot of stuff that is already "offered" by DirectX or Windows myself (mathematical structures for the most part). This had several reasons: For once I wanted to improve my skills by implementing a lot of mathematical calculations by myself, but I also hated to write D3DXVec3Dot for every dot product.

When writing those parts I ensured that both vector3 and matrix3x3/4x4 had the same layout of memory as their DirectX counterpart (checked during compile time via offsetof).

But I highly doubt that writing something like:

D3DXVector3 convert(myvector3 vec){    D3DXVector3 v; v.x = vec.x; v.y = vec.y; v.z = vec.z;    return v;}

will make any difference (concerning performance) in a hobby project.
(As always: Only start worrying if your code is actually running slowly)

Maybe it boils down to personal preference, but I prefer something like

math::vector3 c = cross(a, b);float l = c.length();

over what DirectX offers. For example, I really enjoyed writing (and using) my own rectangle implementation, since it offers functions like

class rectangle{...    boost::optional<rectangle> intersect(rectangle that);    float area() const;    rectangle& union(rectangle that);}

However nothing stops you from writing non-member functions for POINT or RECT.
It may simply be personal preference to enjoy member functions over non-member functions (though I usually implement the latter in special cases as well: length(vec1 + vec2) is less code than vector3(vec1 + vec2).length() :D).