> > <skip> Hi, > > I recommend following a pattern like Zope's adapter instead of > deriving from Shapely classes, and Shapely supports this pattern with > 2 options. If your class provides either the Numpy array interface or > the so-called "Python geo interface", you can use > shapely.geometry.asShape to adapt your own instances without copying > coordinate data. You might want to use Numpy anyway for your spatial > math, so that would seem to be the better option. The same adapter > pattern will be supported in future versions of Shapely. > > I'm not aware of theory or standards around 2.5D topology. I hope > someone else will respond with good references. > > Cheers, > > -- > Sean > Hi,
I will anyway use Numpy/ Scipy and it's very good feature to be able to share directly the data with shapely. I did some experiments with shapely and I'll like to ask (for now), if it would be possible: - for the .project method to return the actual point (in LineString) as well as its distance? - for the .project method to accept MultiPoints as well? - to add method .extrapolate (similar than .interpolate) but operates outside the end points as well? I do realize tough that above kind of functionality may not be relevant for majority of shapely users. However shapely could just be the "common denominator" for many different pythonical geometrical "packages". I do also agree with the Zope's component philosophy, just hoping interfaces would be part of the "official" python. Are there people needing/ interested of additional geometrical operations/ primitives (on top shapely, without infering its current functionality)? If so, perhaps we could discuss more detailed manner on the requirements. Regards, eat
_______________________________________________ Community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
