Re: [eigen] Eigen appears to rock.
• To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Subject: Re: [eigen] Eigen appears to rock.
• From: "Thomas Vaughan" <tevaughan@xxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:11:28 -0600
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=wRGXQrVigT7N7Yl8FdTALCKm58bou1nZGq4M8aCIhpKN+dq9+j4/mJpEK2u5dkxhuP IeHjskMX7LhkwnA8w/JKlo09bwJolKNShlO9NSP7QpIGR6ZJlQ4FNchv+/fPNp89g8oo b5d+h7aaR/dNIDNvDC0r0y3RhMApgwgmtMte4=

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:37 AM,  <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 100% agree with Gael.

Oh, well. :^)

> Another argument against Point is that it means more types hence more
> code instantiated for the same thing.

I think that it is not for the same thing.

> For example, the Point+Vector addition is exactly the same as
> Vector+Vector, so let's not make it generate the same code a second
> time.

The fact that Point+Vector returns Point is actually an important
difference, because the returned Point transforms differently from the
Vector, and the Point has a much smaller and different interface of
allowed operations.

By using classes like these in my own code, it has actually helped me to
clarify thoughts in my own mind (and, I think, to keep my code more

> I didn't realize that this method was called affine(). Why? To me, the
> whole 4x4 matrix is an affine transformation (which means linear
> transformation combined with translation) and the topleft 3x3 block is
> the _linear_ part.  So, how about renaming affine() to linear() ?

I agree completely.  I suggested the same thing in my other message.

You guys are great to talk to.  Thanks for giving me some time.

--
Thomas E. Vaughan

There are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it,
and those who accept dogma and don't know it. - G.K. Chesterton

 Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/