Hello. Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 16:57, Matt Juntunen <matt.juntu...@hotmail.com> a écrit : > > Gilles, > > > From a design POV, I still think that "AffineTransform" is redundant: > > The "AffineTransform" name change has been reverted. It is now the original > "EuclideanTransform".
I was not indicating that the name "EuclideanTransform" would be better than "AffineTransform", I was wondering about whether the class itself is redundant. > I've closed PR #58 and created PR #59 with the latest commits squashed. I've not looked yet. But answering below, to hopefully clarify the misunderstanding. > > IIUC, the required (not just "desired") properties should stand out. > > And, for the mathematically-inclined, the relationship to affine > > transforms would illustrate it (for Euclidean spaces). > > I'm not sure what you're saying here. My understanding is that "Transform" can be documented as: ---CUT--- In Euclidean space, this must be an affine transform. ---CUT--- Gilles > The current documentation is the most complete and mathematically accurate. > > -Matt >>> [...] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
