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