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 16:53:13 +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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Chgt+IB14VG7zDSVk1w6pVkXEuP6MyBZJg4ehj06DPI=; b=C5VbeqWq9kekvHtMzWUIzFUVOEVFWdwX35nlySYcmm5iz8uqtAjMn2eKkl33K1nPTk 9XKBrE1xwBh02HKJYQls73uEcajXhurj80CqYzC6TlbRl1PDQV61nchyLf534AIKYMpt o106LdQManHgQSm+XooVCD7MQfFCVhy/xkVJ4=*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:content-transfer-encoding; b=w4IMCiyHXflqbHDLDTU8uCB+ao0Ajgp4opyyznjCXLot2k2Yom1Mw9CLv8O7rsdzsf N09tAR02wI4TGONt8lyJtGFecJXSYbKjXWUtpzIhoEOz2/uKa5JyEgGQq3l65FcaGrsm OWe22SHXZ+/XNqTjWdlSKVsLg1zgrXxKWvbbg=

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. +1 >> - 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 > > >

**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

**Messages sorted by:**[ date | thread ]- Prev by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Compile error in documentation** - Next by Date:
**Re: [eigen] Compile error in documentation** - 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/ |