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*: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:33:39 +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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=spuqWMan8U9CcEqP6ZbnVdc+csQu/w/pQgplIXbdW/A=; b=gVITbBQpjO/JLQROkgoiHrVZihHoJR6AzQOQf9gfUEPOgBWys4zkOVPphVFdlKmL2Z w8tN7/wxrYcXiZnBkY4CDKhvfiV0A8tSC4jYkgoD9OOW+Azy4N8XcTvGw0NpcU7onxeU /PKOBXO9GQapQPyZY4fK6LdepY1ULRNuz+J18=*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:content-transfer-encoding; b=SZ7sDxJq4c7vBuRJfj9ixy8n/HqafUQpLRMiM5Q2rsvdDo/z4BUDLcONHqnKvuPQ1Q ahWy6vKjbvMeXzMw4hooxssDC8Tz69ZUIn4jTFxnmsAVtf5KMKrAr2HezrtWZ/r8GHFz 0HZMtIiwqVIKjugbemvqk6BcXe3dJ8/OVVras=

2010/7/29 Adolfo Rodríguez Tsouroukdissian <adolfo.rodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > - The introduction of the Mode template parameter looks promising, but it > does not (yet) seem to be fully in use. For example, the inverse method does > not take much advantage of it, and still uses the hint TransformTraits > parameter. Will the hint parameter be preserved once the Mode template > parameter is better supported?. One could get rid of the if clauses by template specialization and a helper. IIRC, Gael did not want this for inverse() but the hint parameter is currently defaulted to the correct value. So if you just call Transform::inverse() it will use the right method. > - For Mode=Isometry (which does not seem to be documented yet) the > transformation should be stored as a (Dim)x(Dim+1) matrix, as in the > AffineCompact case, right?. I think currently Isometry is not memory efficient. One would need to add a new type or what I would prefer something like this Projective, Affine, Isometry, Compact Transform<double,3,Affine | Compact> What would be convenient too were if we would allow to directly assign fixed size types. Transform3d m; m = Vector3d::Zero(); True, we can do that via m.vector() = Vector3d::Zero() but still. - Hauke

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

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

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

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