I originally added this comment to #653, but it was drifting off-topic so I'm opening a new issue instead.
I think comments in orix, such as naming symmetries related to orientations 'left' and 'right' and then giving orientations right-only symmetry implies that at some point, ORIX developers were intending to use the left-to-right rotation convenion, which is popular in computer graphics software and also, I think, the convention intended in the 2015 Rowenhorst paper ORIX uses to define all it's conversions. From section 4.2.2:
Using left-to-right also simplifies some confusion when converting between active and passive. As pointed out by Chi Sing Man in his 2022 textbook:
This means if you write " a grain was rotated by r1, then r2", it doesn't matter if you are in active or passive, in both ways it is written as :
r_new = r_2*r_1
In active, it means applying r1 then r2 to the grain. In passive, it means applying r2 and then r1 to the coordinate system.
Regardless of past intent, as of right now, every example I can find in ORIX seems to imply the right-to-left. If we want to continue to use that standard , I think we should make an effort to remove all the left/right language and replace it with start/end, like @hakonanes did in #653. It might also be beneficial to add some basic "combining crystallogrpahic objects" examples to ORIX to avoid confusion.
I originally added this comment to #653, but it was drifting off-topic so I'm opening a new issue instead.
I think comments in orix, such as naming symmetries related to orientations 'left' and 'right' and then giving orientations right-only symmetry implies that at some point, ORIX developers were intending to use the left-to-right rotation convenion, which is popular in computer graphics software and also, I think, the convention intended in the 2015 Rowenhorst paper ORIX uses to define all it's conversions. From section 4.2.2:
Using left-to-right also simplifies some confusion when converting between active and passive. As pointed out by Chi Sing Man in his 2022 textbook:
This means if you write " a grain was rotated by r1, then r2", it doesn't matter if you are in active or passive, in both ways it is written as :
r_new = r_2*r_1In active, it means applying r1 then r2 to the grain. In passive, it means applying r2 and then r1 to the coordinate system.
Regardless of past intent, as of right now, every example I can find in ORIX seems to imply the right-to-left. If we want to continue to use that standard , I think we should make an effort to remove all the left/right language and replace it with start/end, like @hakonanes did in #653. It might also be beneficial to add some basic "combining crystallogrpahic objects" examples to ORIX to avoid confusion.