On Aug 31, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote: >>> ...Yes, I did the Google search and you're right that the term is not in >>> common usage (although I still maintain it's a completely reasonable term). >>> The reason I think it's meaningful is because it really is a matrix of >>> sorts, but a specialized one that handles only affine transformations. We >>> could call it AffineTransform, but then why not call our 4x4 matrix >>> HomogeneousTransform? I'd just like to be consistent. >> >> HomogenousTransform is fine. I would also be fond of PerspectiveProjection. > > PerspectiveProjection is not a good name for a 4x4 matrix class. Such > a matrix might be used to represent an orthographic projection. > >> I think TransformMatrix is not a good name. It immediately raises the >> question, "what kind of transform". I also think Matrix does not need to be >> in the name. That is to some extent an implementation detail, from the >> mathematical perspective. It's more important to identify the type of >> transformation. > > I'm concerned about the route of adding a class for each kind of > transformation. It will lead to a proliferation of confusingly named > types and excess type conversion, or re-identification of the type of > transformation, when composing transformations. At least in the 3D > realm, all that is desired is one simple 4x4 matrix class. Additional > classes to represent e.g. 4x3 matrices add unnecessary complexity.
I agree. So, in order to appease Maciej :-) what if we keep AffineTransform as is, and change TransformationMatrix to Matrix (or Matrix4 if Matrix is too generic)? ----- ~Chris cmar...@apple.com _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
