On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:58:44PM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:53:43PM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 04:12:04PM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:16:16PM +0200, Sandro Santilli wrote: > > > > > > > I wonder if the RectangleIntersection class should check winding order > > > > and reverse rings if needed... > > > > > > I've added a check for winding order in the rectangle clipping code. > > > This adds one more full vertices scan for each hole. It doesn't look > > > like code winding order would affect the algorithm, am I right ? > > > > > > See commit 4ae01eb0711baac11c102a847b90952619379b0d > > > > I was wrong, it was easy to find a case of failure with counterclockwise > > shell. I'll add shell winding checking too. It'll add yet another full > > vertex scan for the exterior ring, further degrading performances ... > > Mika, do you think RectangleIntersectionBuilder::reconnectPolygons could > accept an additional argument saying if the shell was CW or CCW ? > That way we could skip the additional full scan of the shell whenever > it is fully contained in the rectangle OR it fully contains it...
FYI: I've added such parameter to reconnectPolygons, if the shell is clockwise, lines will be reversed. Seems to work fine. See commit 94238a220de2f64f8f4753652a7659107f77ea51 Test time again ! --strk; () ASCII ribbon campaign -- Keep it simple ! /\ http://strk.keybit.net/rants/ascii_mails.txt _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
