Re: [eigen] Bounding Volume Hierarchies

[Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>]

ok, I see two options:

options 1:

a.makeUnion(b);
a.makeIntersection(b);
if (a.intersects(b)) blabla;

option 2:

a.unite(b);
a.intersect(b);
if (a.isIntersecting(b)) blabla;

any preference ? (I vote for opt. 2)


gael.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Ilya Baran <baran37@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think that "AlignedBox &intersect" vs. "bool intersects" would
> usually be OK: it should be clear from the context which is intended
> and because AlignedBox is not implicitly convertible to bool,
> accidentally overwriting a box is likely to be caught by the compiler.
>  That still leaves room for the following bug (for which existing
> compilers, I guess, wouldn't issue a warning):
>
> a.intersects(b); //this has no effect: a.intersect(b) was intended
>
> If you think this is a problem, perhaps "overlaps" should be the
> predicate? (although that's also somehow nonstandard).
>
>   -Ilya
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> "union" and "intersection" are the obvious choices, "unite" is good
>>> too. However, "intersect" is confusing because in my brain it would
>>> return true or false whether the two boxes intersect or not. This is
>>> why I used "clamp". There is also "crop" , yeah, I know that's not
>>> better... (about unite vs extend, that's because I did not thought
>>> about unite)
>>>
>>> gael
>>
>> Ah yes, right. Well, in proper english, that would be "intersects" but
>> I agree that this little s is a too small difference...
>>
>> Benoit
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>