<
gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> hm, there is another problem the choice of "union" as a replacement of
> operator| is of course not possible (union is a keyword). It's getting
> hard to have a consistent naming scheme, at least using operators &,
> |, &=, and |= would solve all these issues, so perhaps it is still
> worth reconsidering them ?
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Gael Guennebaud
> <
gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>