| 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
>
>
>