My suggestion would be to only have constructions from qyaternions and
provide functions to turn your favorite rep into quaternions if you
want to use something else fir some reason. That way we can suport
both xyz and zxz euler abgles. And there will be no efficiency loss as
that is what the current constructor does anyway. And I am curious to
hear a reason why anyone would use Euler angles if they know about
qyaternions :-)
On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:15 PM, "Javier Ãngel VelÃzquez Muriel" <javi@salilab.o
rg> wrote:
I don't like the convention x-y-z for the Euler angles and we
absolutely need to be consistent around IMP about them or enforce
clear specification. The most used one in EM by far is ZYZ and the one
that I am going to use.
Javi
2008/11/12 <>:
Send IMP-dev mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of IMP-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [IMP-commits] r854 - trunk/modules/misc/include
(Dina Schneidman)
2. Re: [IMP-commits] r854 - trunk/modules/misc/include
(Daniel Russel)
3. Re: 2D geometry ( Javier ?ngel Vel?zquez Muriel )
4. Re: 2D geometry ( Javier ?ngel Vel?zquez Muriel )
5. Re: 2D geometry (Daniel Russel)
6. Re: 2D geometry (Daniel Russel)
7. Re: 2D geometry (Keren Lasker)
Daniel, I agree that conceptually it is wrong to store them in
Vector3D, but
it is very convenient in practice.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Keren Lasker
<> wrote:
Daniel - the angles are not Euler angles but just three angles
around
X/Y/Z axis.
Would you like the option to rotate around another axis, ,something
like:
(1,1,0),45 - meaning rotating around the diagonal of the XY plane
in
45 degrees?
On Nov 12, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Daniel Russel wrote:
I don't like having two equivalent constructors from thevsame
data or
using a vector to hold angles.
What I had meant with my suggestion is initialization from an
axis and
an amount of rotation about that axis as that is a somewhat less
problematic basis than Euler angles (and one I use :-)
On Nov 12, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Notification of IMP commits <
wrote:
Author:
Date: 2008-11-12 14:31:59 -0800 (Wed, 12 Nov 2008)
New Revision: 854
Modified:
trunk/modules/misc/include/Rotation3D.h
Log:
1. Change protected to private
2. Add constructors from Vector3D and an angle
3. update documentation
Modified: trunk/modules/misc/include/Rotation3D.h
UTC (rev 854)
@@ -19,26 +19,28 @@
class IMPMISCEXPORT Rotation3D {
public:
- //! Initialize a rotation in x-y-z order from three angles
+ Rotation3D(){
+ }
+ //! Initialize a rotation in x-y-z order from three Euler
angles
/** \param[in] xr Rotation around the X axis
\param[in] yr Rotation around the Y axis
\param[in] zr Rotation around the Z axis
*/
Rotation3D(Float xr, Float yr, Float zr) {
Subject: Re: [IMP-dev] [IMP-commits] r854 - trunk/modules/misc/
include
To: List for IMP development <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
look at the latest version of Rotation3D class - I added some
documentation on quaternions
Sure, but why do we support construction from the (possibly) Euler
angles at all?
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:02:23 -0800
From: " Javier ?ngel Vel?zquez Muriel " <>
Subject: Re: [IMP-dev] 2D geometry
To: "Daniel Russel" <>
Cc: List for IMP development <>,
Message-ID:
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
2008/11/12 Daniel Russel <>:
Or vector and matrix can be replaced by a single version
templated on the
dimension. We definitely don't want separate code bases for the 2
and 3D
versions as it will be a pain to keep the set of operations in
sync.
On Nov 12, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Keren Lasker wrote:
Javi,
For your 2D geometry classes (Vector2D, Matrix2D ...) - why not
just
using the corresponding 3D classes and keeping Z fixed?
I think it is not too bad in performance and will save you a lot
of
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:02:42 -0800
From: " Javier ?ngel Vel?zquez Muriel " <>
Subject: Re: [IMP-dev] 2D geometry
To: "Daniel Russel" <>
Cc: List for IMP development <>,
Message-ID:
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
- Vector2D is already done but I am fine with changes
- I am building a templated version of matrix for 1,2,3D. I didn't
know about matrix3d until yesterday
- Images are going to be 2D matrices and header.
2008/11/12 Daniel Russel <>:
Or vector and matrix can be replaced by a single version
templated on the
dimension. We definitely don't want separate code bases for the 2
and 3D
versions as it will be a pain to keep the set of operations in
sync.
On Nov 12, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Keren Lasker wrote:
Javi,
For your 2D geometry classes (Vector2D, Matrix2D ...) - why not
just
using the corresponding 3D classes and keeping Z fixed?
I think it is not too bad in performance and will save you a lot
of
I can templatize the current Vector3D tonight (actually, I had
already
done so a while ago, so I just have to resuscitate it).
On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Javier ?ngel Vel?zquez Muriel wrote:
- Vector2D is already done but I am fine with changes
- I am building a templated version of matrix for 1,2,3D. I didn't
know about matrix3d until yesterday
- Images are going to be 2D matrices and header.
2008/11/12 Daniel Russel <>:
Or vector and matrix can be replaced by a single version templated
on the
dimension. We definitely don't want separate code bases for the 2
and 3D
versions as it will be a pain to keep the set of operations in
sync.
On Nov 12, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Keren Lasker wrote:
Javi,
For your 2D geometry classes (Vector2D, Matrix2D ...) - why not
just
using the corresponding 3D classes and keeping Z fixed?
I think it is not too bad in performance and will save you a
lot of
sounds good !
Lets decide on an interface for the geometry classes.
Ben's Vector3D is a very good start.
I'll update the 3D geometry classes accordingly.
Javi - do you have any specific needs for the geometry classes or
just
the basic needs? Maybe you can send your header file so Daniel can
take it into account writing the VectorD?
On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Daniel Russel wrote:
I can templatize the current Vector3D tonight (actually, I had
already
done so a while ago, so I just have to resuscitate it).
On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:02 PM, Javier ?ngel Vel?zquez Muriel wrote:
- Vector2D is already done but I am fine with changes
- I am building a templated version of matrix for 1,2,3D. I didn't
know about matrix3d until yesterday
- Images are going to be 2D matrices and header.
2008/11/12 Daniel Russel <>:
Or vector and matrix can be replaced by a single version
templated
on the
dimension. We definitely don't want separate code bases for the 2
and 3D
versions as it will be a pain to keep the set of operations in
sync.
On Nov 12, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Keren Lasker wrote:
Javi,
For your 2D geometry classes (Vector2D, Matrix2D ...) - why not
just
using the corresponding 3D classes and keeping Z fixed?
I think it is not too bad in performance and will save you a
lot of
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
IMP-dev mailing list
https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev
End of IMP-dev Digest, Vol 13, Issue 8
**************************************
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
IMP-dev mailing list
https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev
End of IMP-dev Digest, Vol 13, Issue 8
**************************************