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 09:11:25 -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=Zty+8Yo5rmWlINElfGUpkYhx2jX4gklGLLD/A7TMLcc=; b=p0APPOWEDi/tlvglXRlimQyWkc8ZS673KfF2GkBRvFy/bOgqTmwMeG+L1RqDo81IZo cnLWeRFYPqepZdac8/LaMYYimGUXa4ZZv+6RRjbTSI3rGajlzXPnFiqIcXGSfdvUKtFq LjgDPvXLush+JFccV344jzK4ai0Ww5bHXLqAI=*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=V63FNRmQoHFzen1tLIb333zLQlw+R3CW5BinxjqKDbZH6Lkf5j+WFcdbm0R59IKneH em4NxMql4+D74WJ3Immaa9saOZSBU/VfImJdDPiP7V41b+fJK8dh8RbKqNKp9v6L/kTd yqfhCk8AZ/19Lzn8PwWfONFmazfmRv3ONK7tw=

2010/7/29 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Translation::translation() >>>> >>>> That may sound redundant, but it would be following what we do in >>>> transform. >> >> I see... ok for the consistency reason, but it's of course >> incomfortable to have it differ from a constructor only by letter case >> (t vs T)... perhaps we can have both. > > We could rename translation in Transform. The whole thing originated > from code in which I had > > Isometry3f R( Matrix4f::Identity() ); > Isometry3f T( Matrix4f::Identity() ); > > I then decided to change the type of T to Translation3f - because it > was simply a translation. And then I needed to change a lot of things. > >>>> Should we allow the same >>>> initialization as well, so would it make sense to allow initialization >>>> of a translation from a (Dim+1) by (Dim+1) matrix? >>> >>> This all sounds pretty reasonable to me. >> >> Ouch...! What would possibly be the use case for that? Think of it this way: > > Well, after reading it again, I am not exactly sure what I was thinking here. :) > > Maybe I thought it were ok because this works too > > Isometry3f o( Matrix4f::Random() ); > > and it is pretty much the same "Ouchness" level. I see what you mean, sure. The reason is that since an Isometry is stored as a dense matrix, it has to allow construction from arbitrary matrices and we have got to leave it up to the user's responsibility to pass a suitable matrix. Translation is different in that it doesn't use that kind of dense storage. > > Again, regarding the initialization. Maybe we should add a static > method Identity() to the transforms. Agree. Benoit > > - Hauke > > >

**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

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

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