Affine transforms - matrix algebra

Pavel Safrata pavel.safrata at
Tue Jul 17 07:50:19 PDT 2012

I've just realized that the 3x3 matrix is wrong (or at least more 
confusing than useful). It would be good for representing a 3D transform 
without translation (which we don't really need to do), but not for the 
intended representation of 2D transform with translation. So I'm taking 
back the addition of MAT_3x3.


On 17.7.2012 12:40, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Le 17/07/12 12:22, Pavel Safrata a écrit :
>>> At this point, given the increasing amount of methods and the enum, 
>>> I wonder if we should replace all those variants by a single method:
>>> double[] getSubMatrix(int firstRow, int firstColumn, int numRows, 
>>> int numColumns, double[] array);
>> Besides the fact that I don't really like replacing a set of 
>> straightforward methods by a single monster, this doesn't really work 
>> for all the cases. The 2x3 matrix for instance contains
>> xx xy tx
>> yx yy ty
>> which is, from the full 4x4 matrix, the first, second, and fourth 
>> column.
> Right, I forgot that case.
>     Martin

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list