Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

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.
>>  - 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?

while reading this thread this morning I was going to suggest the
same, so yes I agree ;)


> - Hauke

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+