-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
Generalize Kernel and Point Type #2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
KermMartian
wants to merge
5
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
generalize-poly-type
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ade2860
Documentation and an example
elfprince13 4e25312
Generalizes kernel and point type used, requiring some restructuring.
KermMartian 7a6e098
Update include/PolygonSimplification.hpp
KermMartian bfbc1d2
Fixups to suggestions
KermMartian d3cb770
Switching from generalizing by Point_2 type to generalizing by Kernel
KermMartian File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure that the points associated with each vertex will be
CGALKernel::Point_2and notCGALPoint, so this is not going to preserve IDs. If this doesn't work for you, you're going to need to provide a custom kernel that uses your custom points.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@elfprince13 what makes you say that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because
CGAL::Nef_polyhedron_2is templated on the kernel type and not the point type, so the internal data structures have no way of knowing about the ids. In principle, that doesn't preclude an interface based on some kind of type-erasure mechanics, but I know enough about CGAL's zero-cost abstractions design philosophy to tell you that's not what's happening here.Have you actually run tests to confirm if a no-op simplification on an already simple polygon preserves IDs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, I have not, but that certainly sounds de rigueur.