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 15:13:23 +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; bh=1rLkoKlnWpVKzezihKGVzx61NhcmQBFi8oJorAwT32M=; b=uNqFEpFBkfRSpQKNJPACisoaA/UyjvHcnUjhyFHvuetKH1L0x3yuYGzfQpB+ky+BWT KXcyoZxidJxp/j0hbqrtXYuMHrLlk3Xa9QeOG9ohAyGt7iNtNi1vt8sny8Fzz7XK+Bp2 ZtAoJPHGK8qNNdAWrX3PvzP20TavCFRQWh0VI=*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; b=dlXhLqZAvyNpOEFnmiOKSHyRjHKFcVWHNb8NHo7KM6jLgPufd3cjJVntAbG1onVku0 mRLqCvtH7Q8//8rTT6uJDMbKhQ/bt24f7B8MdOdHLAdQpXVls4Ne3gjgGupUmIbq2zLo b4hnFmvhGIV1nkxuBD7NzzPdxu5bAkcMhFrHM=

I forgot to comment on this before... On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Ok, the question is actually whether we want Translation, Quaternion, >>> etc. behave like Transformations? > > Translation and Quaternion are different beasts here. > > The reason for Transform to exist is to represent non-linear (i.e. > affine/projective) transformations. Isn't it only the projective part that makes the whole thing non-linear? It that were true, you have like 2/3rd of the cases being linear ones. > Translation is indeed a special case of that. But a Quaternion of norm > 1 represents a rotation which is linear, so there is no reason to > bother about Transform here; instead we unify Quaternion with other > rotations in RotationBase and we take care once and for all of the > interplay of rotations with general Transformations. I was primarily thinking about adding methods ::matrix() (returns a homogenous matrix) ::linear() (returns a pure matrix) ::translation (same as ::matrix(), read only expression) We already have toRotationMatrix() and again it was the different naming that confused me. - Hauke

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

**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

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?** - Next by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Parallelizable operations** - 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/ |