|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: 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:
>>>> That may sound redundant, but it would be following what we do in
>> 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.
> - Hauke