Andy Ferris

@BrianGun someone would need to provide overloads to support transforming those geometries. Triangular meshes would be pretty easy to implement since you’d just need to map the transform over the...

> Triangular meshes would be pretty easy to implement To follow up @BrianGun - for your use case in particular it's probably as simple as `map!(transform, sphere.vertices)` for an in-place...

> Also, I think it would make sense to add a new type `Cartesian` for the Cartesian coordinates case to avoid type piracy with `SVector`. Please let me know how...

> But I think it would be fine if Geodesy was made to depend on a package which defines the necessary traits or supertypes to make things work more smoothly....

I try to think of interfaces and functionality in terms of layers. `AbstractArray` is a container. It has containerish interfaces like indexing and `push!` and `broadcast!`. Without these things, it's...

Cool - interesting problem. Sorry I've been too busy to check this out in detail yet.

I'll make suggestions separate to the OP. Here's my first. Feedback welcome/desired. Note that many transformations (like those in `Geodesy`) are clearly passive, while other transformations like `LinearMap`, `AffineMap` and...

I was suggesting `AffineMap` (active) and `AffineTransformation` (passive). Converting from one to the other should definitely be considered.

Yeah, that's why it never made it in here so far. One question here is this: is the composition of active and passive transformations considered to be active or passive?...

Hmm... is this right? Currently `AffineMap`, `LinearMap` and `Translation` are specified in the active sense (the inputs are the vector/matrix to apply to the points, not the axes). While rotations...