Transform point using localToSceneTransform

Kirill Prazdnikov Kirill.Prazdnikov at
Thu Jul 26 04:40:57 PDT 2012

Hi Pavel,

  I`m thinking from math perspective, in math we do not have points and 
vectors separation.
> So if we have Point and Vector, we need something like 
> Point.add(Vector) or Point.shift(Vector).
All is points (or vectors). Elements form the R3 space. And you can add 
one point and another.
Other then that I do not see any advantage.

Represeting  a point and a vector differently is an innovation, we can 
see will  people like it or not.
If you go that route, please do not forget converters :

Point point(Vector v) { return new Point(v.x, v.y, v.z); }
Vector vector(Point v) { return new Vector(v.x, v.y, v.z); }


On 7/26/2012 2:51 PM, Pavel Safrata wrote:
> Kirill,
> I think we already mentioned quite a few differences between the two 
> things and advantages of having them separate. It would be great if 
> you could comment on the specific arguments instead of generally 
> claiming that it's the same, ignoring the previous discussion (and 
> even the rest of my response to your email).
> Thanks,
> Pavel
> On 26.7.2012 11:23, Kirill.Prazdnikov wrote:
>> On 26.07.2012 13:06, Pavel Safrata wrote:
>>>> Both are from the same R3 space, right ?
>>> Right. 
>> So then one class representing en element of R3 space would be enough 
>> for me to develop R3 math.
>> Probably I do not see advantage of having two classes representing 
>> the same ?
>> Thanks
>>   -Kirill

More information about the openjfx-dev mailing list