Hi.
2020-04-09 3:30 UTC+02:00, Matt Juntunen <matt.juntu...@hotmail.com>:
> It should just be a matter of removing all RotationConvention arguments and
> replacing any branches on the rotation convention with the path that uses
> the non-negated angle. Then, documenting the convention followed by the
> class.
Rereading the discussion[1] that led to the introduction of
"RotationConvention", I now find that the argument was not
very compelling ("some people do not like this convention").
And it seems inadequate and confusing to embed the choice
in one type of transforms, rather than having a separate
concept of "coordinate transform".
However, if the "feature" is just removed, it make it even
more unlikely that people will adapt their code just to use
the version of that class that would ship with CM v4.0.
IMO, they will stick with CM 3.6.1; hence adapting the few
classes that remain in the "o.a.c.m.geometry" package
seems like a pointless exercise. I'd just remove it all (cf.
other thread).
WDYT?
Gilles
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-1302
>>> [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
