I am glad we are agreed it would still be shorter. It would also by my standards be simpler and more direct. But I'm not out to convince you or anyone else of t

I am glad we are agreed it would still be shorter. It would also by my standards be simpler and more direct. But I'm not out to convince you or anyone else of that. Make up your own minds. You're defining the term "in any way that is interesting" according to your prejudices and I am defining it according to mine. Let's leave it at that. Zach's program is a lot nicer than what was originally posted. But please take a look at my program and tell me where additional abstractions would noticeably improve semantic and syntactic clarity. I can't find anything. The only thing that suggests itself is the recurring 'for (vector *v = t.v; v < t.v + 4; v++)' idiom. It's annoying to write bare-handed for loops, but I don't lose sleep over it.