|Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:02:40 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wlWTHthCzjyfQ/164HmcGik92XaLlC1jHWeJ5zgMQXQ=; b=sLKIsR4XXgflzowUshWXoh8bBfFa297sGI4fS6Ie8SgKWOrFZmP0E1wgzqKcoN8AqP +cRKYrQLHPpgABxDI9ZGQWWhWP7/EIk56HGHOTlw0nFlJZyc044I0cbGKVAUUiO7YrEE DtyzRnPH3DfN2QWLEocAl+I/Yt0WNwm3m+AWw=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=aE1SPNp6HtfWX0jV+bdjF5Rl4hZPuQW+0KgkhCLuHQnYSfBDMCsfngwHIBoMVcHoqi LMXhRCr3WaO7SzvPMsoWnMM11B71c81w/AYtuQIUpeKffCY6xWIUOnxLqEfwALSvUQbI AqW4iKM0LMAWj4f+ofXj/U46qmdFs7Cj496Sk=
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> That may sound redundant, but it would be following what we do in
> I see... ok for the consistency reason, but it's of course
> incomfortable to have it differ from a constructor only by letter case
> (t vs T)... perhaps we can have both.
We could rename translation in Transform. The whole thing originated
from code in which I had
Isometry3f R( Matrix4f::Identity() );
Isometry3f T( Matrix4f::Identity() );
I then decided to change the type of T to Translation3f - because it
was simply a translation. And then I needed to change a lot of things.
>>> Should we allow the same
>>> initialization as well, so would it make sense to allow initialization
>>> of a translation from a (Dim+1) by (Dim+1) matrix?
>> This all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
> Ouch...! What would possibly be the use case for that? Think of it this way:
Well, after reading it again, I am not exactly sure what I was thinking here. :)
Maybe I thought it were ok because this works too
Isometry3f o( Matrix4f::Random() );
and it is pretty much the same "Ouchness" level.
Again, regarding the initialization. Maybe we should add a static
method Identity() to the transforms.