Fusion of function update() and updateIMU() #22
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Hello, My suggestion is to normalize Magnetometer values only if they are all non null (NaN error). With this, the function updateIMU() becomes useless, because if mx=my=mz=0 then both update() function and updateIMU() are identical. It would obviously result in some useless multiplications by 0, but those cases should be exceptional or due to some measurement anomalies.
|
@MarcBousquet Why did you not use function overloading? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello,
My suggestion is to normalize Magnetometer values, in function update() only if they are all non null (NaN error). Currently, if those values are Null, the updateIMU() function is called and normalization and rest of update() function is skipped.
With this pull request, the function updateIMU() becomes useless because, when mx=my=mz=0, both the rest of update() function and updateIMU() are identical.
The benefit is a more readable, lighter and easier to maintain code.
The drawback is it results in some useless multiplications by 0 in function update(), when mx=my=mz=0, but this case should be exceptional or due to some measurement anomalies, meaning in a non-usual cases.
Thanks