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, 2 Aug 2010 20:33:15 -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; bh=VruPi/BUjA3i8RUsu/cbCGM69JLvNd5bSUKcYkSR28Y=; b=OtJW9lautQfpQSitWuxu6dNMXrX11aFUWHE3YGl7D4akDn3g2RSkZ46Zq2ZRwlKCA2 6khIZddPLOAiQaUX0y0TneVkTWOlPIUxQTHC+ak8fcIlTyIF15byvOwI3w+OjOu+eX+c rhD8ky2t/lP/bQi3Iq6gdgP2QTMf4bSzfNuRg=*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; b=eiF3nu/EDwR9b/fnv8/rb9oBTKLcWBr2iO1eN7auYs4FIOJ5OqPavw4gBpmCKOTs7L Q5/zeoPCNKt59hlteMrtuqpIvRyjrIHbb1QrXVhVSZ/FvRqqEnCh++9+lBOXwtuXq1jM +/N995e1iT7Tfd3+UdzoREYwBCowHlPt/VbT0=

e2010/8/2 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Yes, this is a sad side-effect when you are using code like this > > Transform3f T( AngleAxisf( 0.5f, Vector3f::UnitX() ) ); > Vector3f a = Vector3f::Random(); > Vector3f b = T*a; > > Why? Well, because your Transform3f definition is too generic. For > homogeneous transformations it is not possible to return a 3 vector. > It is only possible for affine transformations. > > I just recognized that there were two error sources. Well, one error > source and one bug :) - I forgot to change the Affine typedef. > > It should be fixed now. Eeek, a lot of people will be expecting that Transform3f * Vector3f gives a Vector3f, I didn't think about this. This is a really big argument in favor of the old default Affine for Transform. What do you think about reverting to Affine? Benoit > > - Hauke > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Manuel Yguel <manuel.yguel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sorry to come late on this, >> the recent changes (I guess this is this one) broke my code in the >> following manner, now the product of a transform times a point (an >> (n+1) x (n+1) matrix by a n vector) returns an homogeneous point aka a >> (n+1) vector. >> This was not the case previously. >> I don't know if this is on purpose but I have to know if I must fix my >> code or work on a fix for the transform class. >> >> - best regards, >> >> Manuel >> >> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 2010/7/29 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> I pushed the following changes: >>>> >>>> - Transform is now per default Projective. >>>> - Improved invert() in the Transform class. >>>> - RotationBase offers matrix() to be conform with Transform's naming scheme. >>>> - Added Translation::translation() to be conform with Transform's naming scheme. >>>> - Safeguarded some Transform functions with compile time asserts. >>>> - Added missing static Identity() to Rotation2D, AngleAxis. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks a lot for getting this done. This is the attitude! >>> Have you just checked that these changes are appropriately covered by >>> the unit tests? Thinking especially about the inverse() code removal. >>> >>>> For the very last point, how about adding Translation::Identity() ? >>> >>> OK for that. >>> >>> Benoit >>> >>>> >>>> - Hauke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >

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

**References**:**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/ |