Transform point using localToSceneTransform
Kirill Prazdnikov
Kirill.Prazdnikov at oracle.com
Thu Jul 26 04:40:57 PDT 2012
Hi Pavel,
I`m thinking from math perspective, in math we do not have points and
vectors separation.
> So if we have Point and Vector, we need something like
> Point.add(Vector) or Point.shift(Vector).
All is points (or vectors). Elements form the R3 space. And you can add
one point and another.
Other then that I do not see any advantage.
Represeting a point and a vector differently is an innovation, we can
see will people like it or not.
If you go that route, please do not forget converters :
Point point(Vector v) { return new Point(v.x, v.y, v.z); }
Vector vector(Point v) { return new Vector(v.x, v.y, v.z); }
Thanks
-Kirill
On 7/26/2012 2:51 PM, Pavel Safrata wrote:
> Kirill,
> I think we already mentioned quite a few differences between the two
> things and advantages of having them separate. It would be great if
> you could comment on the specific arguments instead of generally
> claiming that it's the same, ignoring the previous discussion (and
> even the rest of my response to your email).
> Thanks,
> Pavel
>
> On 26.7.2012 11:23, Kirill.Prazdnikov wrote:
>> On 26.07.2012 13:06, Pavel Safrata wrote:
>>>> Both are from the same R3 space, right ?
>>>
>>> Right.
>>
>> So then one class representing en element of R3 space would be enough
>> for me to develop R3 math.
>> Probably I do not see advantage of having two classes representing
>> the same ?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Kirill
>
>
More information about the openjfx-dev
mailing list