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*: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:51:35 +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; bh=OTVXt4jFA15KjjntNv35XouQrgqzgD4stnLYXNKT2dI=; b=amEXOo+HjrjCR7LqEJ1x8UmscSGKrthYu/jYqdirZXHgNaOjKXhs0qOSaVYLMIeyD0 a8SE3cqM7es2WTPX0TEdhXiZ6vBil/zuRDzDjpLBBNUdk7mBTxxaPKVq7Tmk1+uwxz3S c0DNXoXn4PwixI5zlm8iFrZiyklZb+mFKaurc=*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; b=Pd+Kc+WhyvCoThyCkq7w71K9mfMVWpkL0k5zlR/mNCclpdDmJvFl74u0VPqitqDz7i 3EAX4tmeZp+D5z9e9GAZiVsOnbd3FKb8FPpizBgiiKfHUVa13KUbjPTmV6zmHRRTffTh 23WNV9W/L/LNrqPY6yBoNrL2Ah5VsTTqCvXvk=

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Absolutely nothing. :) When outvoted, I am ready to switch back but let's just look at the list of pros/cons. pros for switching back: - Some users are happy because their old code keeps working cons against switching back: - It is unintuitive that the most generic Transformation is affine - Some users are unhappy because expectedly correct code like this produces wrong results (one of my strongest arguments) Transform3f T( some_projective_4x4_matrix ); Vector3f v; T*v "Hmm, and I was sure I read that Transform3f's model non-linear transformations!??" - In 90% of the cases, we can be hope (I admit this is not a strong argument) that the users will get a compile time error for the example in question because the fixed size dims are not fitting (v' = T*v when T is projective) - Last chance to get things right since Eigen 3 will anyways break lots of Eigen 2 code or we are stuck with this forever - It is the right thing to do .... ;) Ok, I am passing the choice back to you and other people on the list. As I said, outvote me and I will revert this change. Regards, - Hauke

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

**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

**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/ |