Closed dyl1n closed 3 weeks ago
Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).
View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.
For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.
Thanks for this proposal! I rendered this locally and unfortunately I don't think it's an improvement. This homogeneous transform notation is used nowhere else in the docs and introducing it here is just adding more complication to the reader.
I still think this section could probably be improved somewhat, but I think it should refer to existing fields in mjModel
and mjData
, rather than use mathematical notation.
Sorry if this is a disappointing review
I understand your point about maintaining consistency with the existing documentation style. I agree that introducing new mathematical notations can have a counterproductive effect.
As I mentioned in my original post, math notation was what really helped me clarify my own understanding, and I’m not the best person to explain things purely in English or with code snippets. I hope that my original post in the Discussion will still be helpful to others who come across it looking for clarity on this topic. If in the future I come up with new ideas to refine this section in a way that aligns better with the existing style, I’d be happy to revisit it. But for now I’ll close this PR.
Thank you for the feedback and for taking the time to review my proposal!
Add mathematical precisions about meshes position and orientation in the XML Reference section of the documentation, under the asset/mesh (*) subsection