Subject: Re: [boost] Voronoi benchmark update
From: Andrii Sydorchuk (sydorchuk.andriy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-30 17:39:43
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Sebastien Loriot (GeometryFactory) <
> There is a dual member function, but it requires to use an exact kernel
> for the construction. So the best way to achieve this is to use the
> functor Construct_circumcenter_2.
> However, I'm not sure about what output you want me to create once the
> points are computed.
I am not interested in any output in particular. Just ensuring that
benchmark compares the same work done
by the both libraries. In the current benchmark Boost implementation is
actually computing the coordinates
of the Voronoi vertices, while the GGAL one doesn't.
I think I can produce a boost graph, but this induces an additional
> construction while the triangulation already hold the combinatorial
> of the Voronoi.
Sure, I don't want to add any significant overhead to the CGAL's benchmark
Thus simply evaluating coordinates of Voronoi vertices into a vector of
points sounds like a reasonable solution.
> Last time I was not able to find one in CGAL (4.0) documentation.
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Sebastien Loriot<sloriot.ml_at_[hidden]>**
>>> I'm involved in the CGAL Project, and saw the Voronoi benchmark.
>>> It would be nice if you could change the CGAL code slightly, as it is
>>> not as bad as it currently seems. Attached is the diff to
>>> the trunk of boost.
>>> Concerning the Voronoi diagram of points, a CGAL user, would
>>> use the Delaunay_triangulation_2 class.
>>> Concerning the Voronoi diagram of segments (that do not intersect)
>>> one would make a better choice for number types and traits classes.
>>> Also one better first inserts the endpoints and then the segments
>>> (I agree, this should definitely go into a member function).
>>> Admittedly our examples could be better.
>>> Unsubscribe& other changes:
>> Unsubscribe& other changes: http://lists.boost.org/**
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/**