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*: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:14:16 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ecz7H/GcQa2TW7FvLKiUIvRLwIiWZ0AQdZjH3R/eOGQ=; b=aMOvl2HT0v8A4LgE9G0oB48qbRESEi4s+vSoeDd0dr4Sb9udax/2qWKvw2b9XyR0O1 GNbsfC7uZsLWV5TZ5eJU1R/RgLuoosqvVTY9a/FH+rSjQBLQH8YSukuCPxJ061NOYIbF SH8rKu1nqUqYg0rVlqFf4nHbmQCd4wapurqCQ=*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:content-transfer-encoding; b=JNJ8XUF4f+OA6+S5nRuLhhRf5CiYNItHUcB3X422XE7hnZpUIteebnKIOETceMVgCF bkpGTXkQ1snXuohodHbtSZKJejLy5DlbmoR9SHE5q6JGMLVB0Zz+nWjKXg41gRP+a24N 88p0G3Cz4oUpuQNLa5g638WiPFXJhQH0BFs6I=

2010/8/3 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> - It is unintuitive that the most generic Transformation is affine >> >> Let's focus on this point because it looks crucial to me. The most >> generic transformation is definitely projective, there's no question >> about that, the questions discussed here are: >> a) what should the default value for Mode be? >> b) what should the Transform3f (etc) typedefs stand for? >> >> Obviously, a typedef named "Transform3f" has to use the default mode, >> but at the same time that name "Transform3f" does suggest something >> generic, whence the confusion in this discussion between "default" and >> "generic". > > Right, you nailed it. So, we agree that Transform3f is likely to > suggest something generic. > >> What do you think about this plan: >> - we just remove the Transform3f... typedefs. We just force the user >> to use the mode-specific typedefs such as Affine3f, Projective3f, etc. >> - we don't give Mode any default value. >> - in the tutorials, we focus (at least at the start) on Affine >> transforms, Affine3f etc, so that the intuitive idea that 3D-transform >> * 3D-vector gives a 3D-vector. Of course we then do explain other >> kinds of transform. > > Sound like a plan. Gael, do you have any opinion? Hauke: the geo_hyperplane test fails to build at the moment, something related to Transform and some matrix not having the right size. This is most probably related to your change, no? Also: the Hyperplane::transform() methods are still taking a TransformTraits runtime parameter, which we probably want to get rid of. Benoit > > - Hauke > > >

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

**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

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**Re: [eigen] new tutorial on writing functions taking Eigen types as paramters** - Next by Date:
**[eigen] Why no LU::solveInPlace()?** - 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/ |