[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-36?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17052725#comment-17052725
]
Matt Juntunen edited comment on GEOMETRY-36 at 3/6/20, 4:04 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------
PR is ready: https://github.com/apache/commons-geometry/pull/70
I can't think of any other way to express rotations in 2D other than an angle
and a rotation matrix, so I opted for a concrete {{Rotation2D}} class instead
of an interface.
was (Author: mattjuntunen):
PR is ready: https://github.com/apache/commons-geometry/pull/70
I can't think of any other way to express rotations in 2D other than an angle
and a rotation matrix, so I opted for a concrete {{Rotation2D}] class instead
of an interface.
> Package "o.a.c.geometry.euclidean.threed.rotation"
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: GEOMETRY-36
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEOMETRY-36
> Project: Apache Commons Geometry
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: Euclidean 2D, Euclidean 3D
> Reporter: Gilles Sadowski
> Priority: Major
> Labels: design, documentation, pull-request-available
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> There is no equivalent in package {{o.a.c.geometry.euclidean.twod}} where
> rotations factory is defined inside the {{AffineTransformMatrix2D}} class.
> Some clarity could be gained from having a "symmetric" design.
> Shouldn't we define a {{Rotation2D}} interface?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
