Jeffrey Brent McBeth wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 07:21:45PM +0100, Abrolag wrote:
definitely agree with you on this. A vector approach seems much more natural and flexible. I think the necessary code for working out the boundaries could well be useful for other similar operations. I just have a feeling that finding an area inside intersecting lines (that are not necessarily related to each other in any other ways) could turn out to be very useful.
I'm not sure my comment necessarily advocates a vector approach. I think the minimum spill can be done by choosing the size of the "pixels" in the raster approach. I'm not sure which approach is smarter, but it seems like either would work.
Which is a call for someone to pick up a Computational Geometry book if I ever heard one. I would suggest "Computational Geometry" by M. de Berg as a good starting place (and it will have the above problem in it)
I agree. Thanks for the reference.
Cheers, Terry