Transform point using localToSceneTransform

[Richard Bair]

Vector3D extends Point3D?

On Jul 27, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Jim Graham wrote:

> This is starting to make sense to me as I see more examples of how the 2 are used.  I'm definitely seeing the value of separate types for making code readable and for encouraging proper math.  It's like making our geometry code "strongly typed" - in the Java spirit...
> 
> 			...jim
> 
> On 7/26/2012 7:35 AM, Pedro Duque Vieira 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,
>>