Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?

[Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Translation::translation()
>>>
>>> That may sound redundant, but it would be following what we do in
>>> transform.
>
> 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.

- Hauke