Transform point using localToSceneTransform

[Oscar Paesi]

Hello,

I agree and encourage the separation in Point and Vector classes.

Adding one more argument:
I am currently using Point2D to store vector data in my code and have to
take extra care to make it clear for those who read it that my variables
are in fact vectors. With a dedicated class for vectors, the code is
self-documented.

Cheers,

Oscar Paesi

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Pedro Duque Vieira <
pedro.duquevieira at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi again,
>
>
> > Hi Kirill,
> > On 26.7.2012 10:10, Kirill.Prazdnikov wrote:
> > > On 26.07.2012 10:20, Pavel Safrata wrote:
> > >> Exactly, I think the point is that 'point' is not 'vector' regardless
> > >> of what workarounds we introduce in method naming and documentation.
> > >> Those methods would look really weird on Point.
> > >
> > > Both are from the same R3 space, right ?
> > Right.
> > >
> > > And we can add them together :
> > >  Vector speed, position;
> > >   position += time * speed;
> > >
> > > I vote for Jim`s approach.
> > Does it make sense to add two points? I think it doesn't. So if we have
> > Point and Vector, we need something like Point.add(Vector) or
> > Point.shift(Vector). In Jim's approach we need Point.add(Point) with
> > documentation stating that one of the points represents a point and the
> > other one represents a vector. So what is the advantage?
> > >
> >
>
> Exactly. Adding two points doesn't make sense.
>
>
>
> > > If a transform is { M3x3 + Translate }, them
> > >  - transformPoint (normal transform) would be { P*M3x3 + Translate }
> > >  - transformVector (delta transform) would be { P*M3x3 }
> > We already know that it is possible to represent both things by one
> > class and move the distinction to method names and documentation. But
> > please explain what is the advantage of it (except the obvious one of
> > having lower class count).
> > Thanks,
> > Pavel
> > >
> > > -Kirill
>
>
> If you go this way with point you could go this way with a lot of other
> framework classes: say you could use Point2d to represent a Dimension2d, a
> BoundingBox to represent a Rectangle2D or Insets, etc.
> I personally don't really think this is a good approach.
>
> Thanks, best regards,
>
> --
> Pedro Duque Vieira
>