Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring? |

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives ]

*To*: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: [eigen] Do we need geometry refactoring?*From*: Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 11:41:00 +0200*Cc*: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*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:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=M/O4GZOusygD6xA9m6z6IVtCMjGTXBil9C0lday+mms=; b=NMNQeK4cGt3EoPD86bk0Y6z8gDeWV2zD/L3yQGLpX0fqqHJMxM+SLn6Nx7pwAr8E7V vfcPwtuZ3aOMn8Y6Qc4mSRdbjhJEw1ExdeFAu+pVPuAkZYIAQMWFIrDjyqQJCTY7cG4x YyI9UajO3IaEmFE+pVcZa7IVq80j1mZpFdsdo=*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 :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=eiHRxVD2qbcZ+Iyjqr8BaoKPG4f4MCdkzHKOaMwJ+UBmsCBmxUSDEAANH4YY3230cH p4yiiVguZQYEMDbzRoJjIz1MyWC5e4AB45qVaUqFZxLD1pYPTDpMVCAWqyfePEdz1ZkG 7evSKCWwnVz+KOn/beo6qdHUQhn9brxMUgFlY=

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 ;) gael > > - Hauke >

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

**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] bug in assigning triangularView to MatrixBase** - Next by Date:
**[eigen] new tutorial on writing functions taking Eigen types as paramters** - 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/ |