geodetic_utils build version #1
Conversation
…nstructor to default.
|
@marija-p @enricgalceran do you guys prefer catkin over catkin_simple? |
|
|
||
| double _init_lat; | ||
| double _init_lon; | ||
| double _init_h; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why the preceding _ here and above and I would prefer initial_x, init can always stand for initialize and initial.
|
@dymczykm Not necesarily, I just used catkin here because I was looking at other mav packages using it as an example. I can change to catkin_simple if preferred. |
Changed variable name
marija-p
force-pushed
the
build_version
branch
from
e56311b
to
f7240ea
Compare
|
@ffurrer That's all been done now. |
| static const double semiminor_axis = 6356752.3142; | ||
| static const double first_eccentricity_squared = 6.69437999014 * 0.001; | ||
| static const double second_eccentricity_squared = 6.73949674228 * 0.001; | ||
| static const double flattening = 1 / 298.257223563; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
switch to constexpr (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13346879/const-vs-constexpr-on-variables).
And if you use google style guide, constants are named as kConstantName (http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.html#Constant_Names), but this is up to you :).
|
@ffurrer Thanks, done! |
| { | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| void initialiseReference(const double lat, const double lon, const double altitude) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
no need for const prefacing these. It's copied over anyway, doesn't matter if the values are changed inside.
|
Except for parameters as pointers for output, LGTM from my side. |
|
@helenol I've made the changes without getting muddled up with the pointers, hopefully. :-) Seems to compile and work fine for me! |
geodetic_utils build version
|
I just added a README to master based on the current version of the code. Let me know if I should open a pull request for documentation stuff next time :P @helenol @enricgalceran |
The conversions were tested on path_publisher and validated with the old conversion functions (now removed) and polycoverage. Please let me know if there are any issues with this, or if the coding can be done more elegantly! :-)
@enricgalceran