| Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:42:43 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.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=j9S5S1msBrUqGWUTXJruBQxnjdtXRdPubJS+kgSnYyY=; b=LwzlNMBkaZkM9Cw4xEOW0VxaOaGYixHSpUyOk+KYiS7ogwGG5zFW8a8LDbU3JtXqJN ntMzWIfQgtlnMZZsEcb9m8wGEbGQU1mbGYlJvoc926b3qw2YtYfeZNby4vW4G2ttTitH UeDqh4NN6VDsYzhwJVFY2iXi7fGkenf7G7M2s=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=XITEf/aDl4b7fLlt1fUpMX6ddfFAjjM4iGgKt0HqfHNf86tEBDiD0JOgUwvb0kp9I8 XTGqaddQsuc0X4X3FC9nPpTY/li7uD9sy6kUaFP3zFFhuCIFa8R91MHrfmVUyknj8ohT QTD9gNyuKIbt8EBwax2rRMPLKmvy2z4Qs8ems=
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