Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?

[Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>]

2010/8/16 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I'll fix it immediately.

Actually it's a deep issue (our code assigning a transform to another
is half-baked), I am already taking care of rewriting this stuff.
However I still don't know exactly what causes the test failure. If
you know that and see a quick fix, you're very welcome to fix it.

Benoit

> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2010/8/16 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> 2010/8/16 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Ah, great, Gael had fixed that already, I should have grabbed the
>>> newest changes.
>>
>> ...except that the tests are still failing at runtime,
>> geo_transformations_1:
>> /home/bjacob/eigen/Eigen/src/Geometry/Transform.h:246:
>> Eigen::Transform<Scalar, Dim, Mode>::Transform(const
>> Eigen::Transform<_Scalar, Dim, OtherMode>&) [with int OtherMode = 32,
>> _Scalar = double, int _Dim = 3, int _Mode = 2]: Assertion
>> `OtherMode!=Projective && "You cannot directly assign a projective
>> transform to an affine one."' failed.
>>
>> I'm going to write to the list about tightening our commit policy (i'd
>> like to request that we run all tests before pushing anything, etc).
>>
>> Benoit
>>
>>>
>>> The question below about transform() still remains, though.
>>>
>>> Benoit
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also: the Hyperplane::transform() methods are still taking a
>>>> TransformTraits runtime parameter, which we probably want to get rid
>>>> of.
>>>>
>>>> Benoit
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Hauke
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>