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*: Manuel Yguel <manuel.yguel@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 19:40:59 +0200*Dkim-signature*: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=k5nvGSh+hYo1RPFCzZpyhaqFVPzjejvPt/h92lBmWpg=; b=PtaEo0mkMQhxRHNoTLl9Lgt8q26M25OiUhSRg0ZyBgdVMnkM7syQo9wuAhdWuDhFWw FbpxYihnLI/JNN7eAMeTWGpsJYo5M7l10/ivdkQ1G2K6SGgOUC/mSkLsH6nD7DAtYmv4 Z1eF5FH7R1NgUCqFFaoS3j3K2LfGVAs5p+alk=*Domainkey-signature*: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=QwHpXhEWWalmCDvpVAniNzjxkoG90dyaSCKkg01aQj+sUL6vV7g7irsifQOp/dmc4K fgQO+m3zOoDWxknAYrG/gQlmx8q/rnv07FuMo9o6sdOoT04u5bRg2qlb41CrJuzeYaIe B925Pcz2lDKbO0JSfACRYFcq20TnSfWMKI62I=

Sorry to come late on this, the recent changes (I guess this is this one) broke my code in the following manner, now the product of a transform times a point (an (n+1) x (n+1) matrix by a n vector) returns an homogeneous point aka a (n+1) vector. This was not the case previously. I don't know if this is on purpose but I have to know if I must fix my code or work on a fix for the transform class. - best regards, Manuel On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2010/7/29 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> I pushed the following changes: >> >> - Transform is now per default Projective. >> - Improved invert() in the Transform class. >> - RotationBase offers matrix() to be conform with Transform's naming scheme. >> - Added Translation::translation() to be conform with Transform's naming scheme. >> - Safeguarded some Transform functions with compile time asserts. >> - Added missing static Identity() to Rotation2D, AngleAxis. >> > > Thanks a lot for getting this done. This is the attitude! > Have you just checked that these changes are appropriately covered by > the unit tests? Thinking especially about the inverse() code removal. > >> For the very last point, how about adding Translation::Identity() ? > > OK for that. > > Benoit > >> >> - Hauke >> >> >> > > >

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

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**[eigen] Compile error in documentation** - Next by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [eigen] Compile error in documentation** - Next by thread:
**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?**

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ | http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/ |