Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

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

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+