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*: Manuel Yguel <manuel.yguel@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:09:56 +0200*Dkim-signature*: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=oWWXeg+LU7l8gvIsmt/ELNyEqF/V/WAJm17+YP4Rhz8=; b=omMy8FkT2m8Lw17513ErSVTZ6Sqj0eljpauLHZ4Ydsw4zrH7FrPilOBY14twV059Ub AOI6WYf0HjkVFye/wJuo4BsG5ugHioBJLWeXg+Y9eNmdFqNpwBFTo0eeCgvNpJzJWrVH aj5gkwWnaP4ovcpSG86VvKzGfP+TJJaZHd+qY=*Domainkey-signature*: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=qzaBpNH0heo6qkY5c9NTMHmrS6h/3HL01TeLCc6dyz9wDIpX3674gaCc2E2HKbvlVs SFQI+mr5Is5oEu+QJhrGAbIPE7rLPkhSHcVybqi7epWeka7ij77hXCUq4TdF+tXt5Z7V v7NfWYcdqLjJiITjf55tAtUPAaM/n8eOlxWc0=

> Why? I think I start to understand your confusion. Do you consider a > "Transform" to be affine and or isometric? something more general: a (N+1)x(N+1) linear application as I understand that is what the Transform class can be. In my opinion, the main interesting part of this kind of API is to allow easy definition of rotations and to mix them with other kind of transformations. > In our case the class for a general non-linear transformations is linear transformation in (N+1)x(N+1) space, or do I miss some restriction on what a transform can be ? > called Transform and thus (IMHO), Transform3f should be as general > since the name is so close to the class name In this case I vote for Transform3x == Affine3w != Transform<X,3> (default parameter to Projective) which is a slightly different from what you proposed before because otherwise I think that people will use Matrix4x instead of Transform > This works now out of the box because unless you don't specify > (Affine3f = Transform<float,3,Affine>) it is assumed to be fully > projective. Your compilation will even break in case you use fixed > size types. that is very nice! > >> Perhaps an alternative would be that Transform3x is Affine but not the >> default parameter of the class Transform ? > > As I said. I don't like it because Transform3x implies a general > homogeneous 3D transformation In my mind there was no such concept, the closest concept I come with is the concept of a 4D linear transformation, so I think it is confusing to use Transform3x for that. But if a typedef is really needed for such a thing ... perhaps it is better to pick something else. - Manuel

**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:*Manuel Yguel

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

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?** - 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/ |