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