On 23-6-2013 19:03, Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
2013/6/23 Barend Gehrels

What is the difference between view::as_centroid and the normal return_centroid? Same question for envelope. IMO all these calls are redundant - we have this already. What does as_bounds do?

The functions we have converts one Geometry into another.

Not always: the centroid of the point just returns the point. A centroid of a circle would just return its center, provided the Point-type equals the Point-type the circle is based on.

View preferably would store reference and provide needed data without conversion. And if someone wanted to convert the geometry because he want to reuse it somehow, he probably should use other method than view.

view::as_centroid for sphere would just access center's coordinates using get<>(), for box it could calculate it on the fly using min and max coordinate, all without the conversion, and storing of additional Point.

OK I understand that now. That needs an additional type (e.g. centroid_of_box) which calculates the x and y (and z) each time it is accessed. I don't know if I would really prefer that above a one-time calculation and extra storage of only one point...

For any geometry using Points range, this could also be calculated on the fly for one Dimension, in some cases this could be preferable, e.g. when coordinates musn't be calculated for all dimensions.

I see.

The same is true with envelope, e.g. envelope's min and max corners for Sphere, Point, even for Polygons could be calculated on the fly, there is no need to create additional Box, especially for Points.

Thanks for the clarifications. I understand it now but would never use that - way to inefficient. Is there really need for this?

As for bounds(). I'm using this kind of function in the Index. It is a generalization of envelope() and can calculate bounding objects of arbitrary type, e.g. bounding box or sphere.

The envelope does that too (calculating bounding objects of arbitrary type) - what is exactly the difference?

Regards, Barend