Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring? |

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives ]

*To*: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?*From*: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:10:38 -0400*Dkim-signature*: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=gF0l35LDASeg/tCiuI+sLJCKLOYdNNrXJa4vRZwWtKo=; b=XpY7NQAo3ZTJAKp1u+wxJ3oXm6u/Z2i2bJ3YRTDiN7VW69y3BjLfAUpO6Xt/qtm61+ q9K1dmvOgHU2EbqoZb5byEWdg9CuU1hE/i5aWTz68Bn2cHX5E1iif3UqYfrc5wjSDtEs ZcB3cs0rQ5Ti9yadNNaME0dZxVz1QiroPwBew=*Domainkey-signature*: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=r8pNcBGFXJQb+NKeBFel/e3hFpTKNnVehCFfCB5F/XY2AHmSkXMdOrUFZnUMPqjkpB URe6eHG9RKLTfbSoSvPUQPxaTtzcA+HZRss2eSFzk3bCAomR82JnDpCPwFpVE+I6DIYb Qdtp6rs+dWPvP8hFYyr21q2t+2c1Tahc8QaWs=

2010/7/29 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > I pushed the following changes: > > - Transform is now per default Projective. > - Improved invert() in the Transform class. > - RotationBase offers matrix() to be conform with Transform's naming scheme. > - Added Translation::translation() to be conform with Transform's naming scheme. > - Safeguarded some Transform functions with compile time asserts. > - Added missing static Identity() to Rotation2D, AngleAxis. > Thanks a lot for getting this done. This is the attitude! Have you just checked that these changes are appropriately covered by the unit tests? Thinking especially about the inverse() code removal. > For the very last point, how about adding Translation::Identity() ? OK for that. Benoit > > - Hauke > > >

**References**:**[eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Hauke Heibel

**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Adolfo Rodríguez Tsouroukdissian

**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Benoit Jacob

**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Hauke Heibel

**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Benoit Jacob

**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Hauke Heibel

**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Hauke Heibel

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?** - Next by Date:
**RE: [eigen] part<SelfAdjoint> in Eigen3** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?** - Next by thread:
**[eigen] part<SelfAdjoint> in Eigen3**

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