|Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?|
[ Thread 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 );
"Hmm, and I was sure I read that Transform3f's model non-linear
- 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.