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 11:03:28 -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=CU1u6TOytHkz9/oepIw/kohUCGsVotkYVSytHa8/9iA=; b=UptU1PwYGIrPWNEsn48oaegZRnGiFupfAhEHy3bjjrdH8JZAcb8OPdBgnpSt6mdLgq J8l+4VzNnpxskIOgpwvO+KMiDF10+fE/QGY50/ltaVQHnJyCLRvCoaSVURgIWk9qtaC1 p+dP2xo8gb/Hh4pU+xQH4Nxjb95WnluHGt0dc=*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=vQKuz5uKovK2npI1ObgkyG+8BhVrFht6LJx1gmyOBMQoLn5y4KujnBFTPuDSLyTnlV 0c7DfMo6R4ctg0C0+7czNp/XtecW+KeQjHygVB7b8XCBMQBXMDJ/QvPELsikjMtpEXYA Ycu4sWX+qlNa8rr+BCZnOH5NSHibE8buvU7YI=

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. 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 >> >> >> >

**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

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

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**[eigen] Why no LU::solveInPlace()?** - Next by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?** - 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/ |