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*: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:28:49 +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=JKotrQRucKMyGISWkqfZEioxzbPbMRtfVnw+6Rb5PVc=; b=oyOoPhk5pLgwY9JwI0ossfr/En7iCZuZESVKRqQd4pyPaAGUY6kUzcUJyzg7VqGS44 l0sqMtQoeOAkRiyM9aHzwFPFHQQV930MhIFq81apV38oyY5Fp2XkkX9YKBNXjN5Giq1Q AL6Y1BrmzZI16QkSsF+Y4IcvM1ma+ojuTTPfI=*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=dVIsusfRBNtgqJilgPllyqbBNHgRdM6tkJ2jEAe0dYzy7lhgLoMtiXpR+/qWUo2Bd7 eoe+JTBSnlEV8CO2cyXrmHCF69ySwlDqPDNYZv8uQYaXdY+BKuYCMX/Km7ej3910OyRk Fjprg/Pb/rBMcfsknevBuzh4Q5KjbjaVlEWsk=

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yep, it looks all good to me. Can you just clarify the apparent > contradiction between what you said at the top (disallow 1)) and what you > just said (allow the latter product). It is not a contradiction equation 1) maps Transform x Matrix -> Transform My new proposal is (and to do this uniquely for all Transforms and in particular all valid RHS matrices). Transform x Matrix -> Matrix Just to be sure, this will break some existing code because you cannot directly assign the result to a Transform because the matrix constructor is explicit. Regarding affine transformations you are right. Mathematically speaking, the upper left (Dim)x(Dim) part does not necessarily have to be invertible. In the geometry or applied field where I come from, affine transformations as well as projective transformations (homographies) have to be invertible (or are defined to be convertible). Since we are performing "primarily" point transformations consisting for affine of a combination of shearing, (anisotropic) scaling and rotation, I was expecting the Transform class to represent geometric "invertible" transformations... - Hauke

**References**:**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Manuel Yguel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?***From:*Gael Guennebaud

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

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

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

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**Re: [eigen] about changeset 6eb14e380** - Next by Date:
**Re: [eigen] about changeset 6eb14e380** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?** - Next by thread:
**Re: [eigen] legal question**

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