Frido/Javi
How about Monday 10am or 11am SF time ?
Javi please send the classes headers before we meet so we can save
some unnecessary iterations trying to understand one another -
communicating via skype is hard enough ;)
On Nov 13, 2008, at 3:07 AM, Friedrich Foerster wrote:
yes, would be a good idea.
javi, if you plan on being compatible with spider/xmipp i urge you to
modify the 3d embed structure. it definitely makes no sense to treat
2d and 3d images differently. typically, all operations (rotations,
translations, fourier, etc) are 2d and 3d in these packages as well.
otherwise, embed, imp, or wherever you put it will end up in a mess
with all kinds of different classes.
if you want to change the 3d embed data structure for being compatible
with other packages you got my vote by all means.
best
frido
On Nov 13, 2008, at 8:47 AM, Keren Lasker wrote:
yes Javi - see my last email.
The geometry manipulation classes are not related to data storage.
Anyway - it would be nice to have a discussion between you, Frido and
me on data storage - would you mind having a three way skype call
soon?
On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Javier Ángel Velázquez Muriel wrote:
Keren, the more I see your Matrix3D class the more realize that my
code is going to serve a different purpose. The matrix you define in
Matrix3D is a 3x3x3, but what I want is a NxLxM, something like the
map that you had for EMBed, and in my case, what I understood by
matrix 2D was a NxM, not a 2x2, for example. Vectors here don't
apply,
but still is going to be very helpful to have a templated vector.
Again, I am building the templated array.
Javi
2008/11/12 Keren Lasker <>:
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
coding/debugging time.
Keren.