|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: 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...