Subject: [geometry] "covered_by" for polygons
From: Volker Schöch (vschoech_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-15 12:31:28
One last post for today: As far as I can see, there is no dedicated "within" or "covered_by" algorithm for polygons. Is this considered "by design" or "not yet implemented"?
In any case, while there is no dedicated algorithm (or did I miss something?), what do you consider a canonical/optimal-performance/most-precise "covered_by" test for polygons? Any pros or cons for A.covered_by(B) := area(A-B)==0 vs. A.covered_by(B) := (A&B)==A ?
Do you think there are any optimization opportunities in a dedicated covered_by algorithm?
I think I know your answers to all questions in this email, I am merely curious to verify my assumptions because obviously, you have a lot more experience with algorithms like these than I have.
-- Volker Schöch | vschoech_at_[hidden] Senior Software Engineer think-cell Software GmbH | Chausseestr. 8/E | 10115 Berlin | Germany http://www.think-cell.com | phone +49 30 666473-10 | US phone +1 800 891 8091 Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 85229 | European Union VAT Id DE813474306 Directors: Dr. Markus Hannebauer, Dr. Arno Schoedl
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net