On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 07:34:06PM -0400, J Smith wrote:
- what were previously three buffer methods (buffer, buffer_with_style
and buffer_with_params) have become one buffer method that allow for
overloaded parameters that accomplish the same thing. No sense having
all three methods that are
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
Right. In the PHP binding I've made a single function taking an associative
array for all the parameters (building a GEOSBufferParameter object).
Yeah, I noticed that and decided to follow suit. I'd like the two to
be
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:16:19AM -0400, J Smith wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
Right. In the PHP binding I've made a single function taking an associative
array for all the parameters (building a GEOSBufferParameter object).
Yeah, I
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
Speaking of which... how did you deal with prepared geoms ?
I didnt' make any use of those from the PHP binding. Dunno if I want
them to be transparent or explicit.
I implemented a to_prepared method on Geos::Geometry
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Sean Gillies sean.gill...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, Shapely has a prep() function that prepares a geometry. The
result has a subset of the normal geometric object methods.
http://gispython.org/shapely/docs/1.2/manual.html#prepared-geometry-operations
Now that
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:42:20AM -0600, Sean Gillies wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:16:19AM -0400, J Smith wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
Right. In the PHP binding
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Sandro Santilli s...@keybit.net wrote:
So both Python and Ruby made the PreparedGeometry type explicit.
I was thinking more of a .prep() function returning void and internally
holding a prepared version to transparently use in all prepared-aware
methods.
Just a little opinion on this, as I'm actually starting to use ffi-geos. If it
is to be the de facto ruby binding for GEOS, it should expose the same
flexibility that GEOS provides, including control over when and whether to
produce a prepared geometry, so that clients that need that level of
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:46:00AM -0700, Daniel Azuma wrote:
Just a little opinion on this, as I'm actually starting to use ffi-geos. If
it is to be the de facto ruby binding for GEOS, it should expose the same
flexibility that GEOS provides, including control over when and whether to
