Re: [eigen] RotationBase times DiagonalMatrix

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

Sorry guys,

but I wanted to bump this thread since it seems to fall asleep and it
would be great to get some feedback.

If you are too busy to make such reviews I will simply start creating
a fork, from which you then may pull ...

I am even fine, if we come to a negative conclusion regarding my
proposals as long as we manage to get to some decision.


On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Hauke Heibel
<hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
> welcome back. :)
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> inline Transform<Scalar,Dim,AffineCompact> operator*(const
>>> DiagonalMatrix<Scalar,Dim>& s) const
>>> { return Transform<Scalar,Dim,AffineCompact>(*this) * s; }
>> My problem with this solution is that the product of a rotation times
>> a diagonal matrix is still a linear transformation, so why return a
>> Transform which is specifically an affine (not linear) transformation?
>> I'm in favor of using plain matrices everytime that a plain, arbitrary
>> linear transformation is meant.
> I see what you mean and when Affine transformations were allowed to be
> implicitly constructed from any Dim x Dim matrix that were a perfect
> solution.
>> Ah OK, I see. It doesn't compile with a) because the assignment in the
>> declaration is interpreted as construction, so it tries to use the
>> constructor (taking EigenBase) instead of operator= and fails as it's
>> an explicit constructor.
> Exactly.
>> That's really stupid :-/ C++ is able to convert "T a = b;" into "T
>> a(b);" only to fail when the constructor here is explicit. But if one
>> writes T a(b); or T a; a=b;  then the error goes away.
> I think that behavior is perfectly fine. The question is why at all allow
> T a; a=b;
> while declaring the ctor explicit!? That's a little bit of a
> contradiction. From what I understand the reason Gael implemented it
> like this is to prevent the creation of hidden temporaries but I am
> not sure anymore whether this preemptive optimization step is useful.
> Is there at all a measurable performance penalty for these little
> stack objects?
>> I'd say that's a problem with C++ itself and I see only two approaches:
>>  - either live with that and tell Eigen users to use A a(b) instead of
>> A a  = b when the class A has an explicit constructor
> The syntax becomes really ugly. My colleagues and me are working since
> 4-5 weeks extensively with the Geometry parts of Eigen and just one
> example is writing and using functions that take Eigen::Transform<...>
> as an input parameter. You cannot pass an Eigen::Translation, you
> cannot pass Eigen::Scaling, all due to the explicit constructors. In
> these cases, I really want would love to have the explicit conversion
> capability which would make the code much more readable at the cost of
> a few extra bytes wasted when converting an Eigen::Translation into an
> Eigen::Transform.
>>  - or stop making constructors 'explicit', consider that C++ language
>> feature flawed: it doesn't work nicely with C++'s
>> convert-assignment-to-construction rule
> I still think explicit does exactly what it is meant to do. The only
> question is whether we really want it in this case.
> Regards,
> Hauke

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+