adds additional methods / classes solely to improve the readability of the code

I can’t think of a good case where objectives should have non-trivial bounds.  So I like removing the bounds.

But I think there is value in either case.

On Jun 20, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Michael Posa <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In solvers/NonlinearObjective.m:
> 
> > @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
> > +classdef NonlinearObjective < NonlinearConstraint
> > +% The Drake optimization classes treat objectives as constraints.  
> > +% This class simply provides an alternative name for the 
> > +% NonlinearConstraint class, to aid in readability of the code.
> > +  
> > +  methods
> > +    function obj = NonlinearObjective(varargin)
> > +      % note: would it make sense to enforce lb=-inf and ub=inf?
> I think the purpose to making a new class would be to eliminate the need for bounds, otherwise having two classes that do exactly the same thing is more confusing than not.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
>