On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > >> Personally I'm leaning towards just making is2D and isIdentity use the >> simple definitions that check for exact values of the matrix coefficients, >> rather than using state bits. It's a difficult judgement call but the >> simplicity and generality probably outweigh the possible downsides. >> > > Maybe we can provide both so people that want consistent behavior, can > still call MaybeHasTransform. > I don't think there's much point since people will invariably just call isIdentity. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2014 03:11:34 UTC