William Cauchois wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:08 AM, kcrisman <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Would all these ideas for testing deal with the triangulation issue, > Bill? Your original post seems to imply this. > > - kcrisman > > > I thought that, during triangulation, we could test for NaN values and > delete those faces. However, I see now that > ParametricSurface.triangulate assumes a regular indexing scheme for the > _faces array, so the array must be full. This means that deleting faces > must be performed after the mesh has been triangulated, unless we want > to change the algorithm significantly. > > Jason Grout and I actually dealt with these same issues when working on > #5514, exclusions for parametric 3D plots, which unfortunately is not > entirely finished. Perhaps a better way to get plot3d to handle > functions with undefined values would be to finish work on #5514, and > then after we encounter undefined values apply a region function (this > is the feature that #5514 implements) that serves to exclude those > values. I should have recognized this at the beginning! > > Does that sound like a good course of action? I can definitely revisit > #5514.
That sounds reasonable. I'd rather have #5514 in anyway, if there had to be a choice, since you could then just manually specify an exclusion region. Jason -- Jason Grout -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
