On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:33 PM,
<address@hidden> wrote:
On 2012/07/14 14:01:08, joeneeman wrote:
I don't understand this do while (dirty) part. It seems to me that
unless you
have two empty segments in a row, you only need one pass. On the other
hand, if
you have two empty segments in a row then this function will fail
anyway because
you will end up setting center->slope_ and center->y_intercept_ both
to
-infinity, which is bound to start creating NaN sooner or later.
infinite y intercept and then only does one pass.
This sounds like a good idea. If you put the skyline combination part in a separate function, we could just use it after merges, etc, so that the property of not having adjacent empty buildings is always maintained.
On 2012/07/14 14:01:08, joeneeman wrote:
I wish I could convince you to think of a skyline as a region instead
of just
the boundary of that region. Once you think of it that way, it becomes
clear
that this information can be easily obtained from the Skyline_pair,
using the
existing distance function.
Suppose s and t are Skyline_pairs.
max(s[UP].distance(t[DOWN]), s[DOWN].distance(t[UP])) = -infinity
means the objects don't overlap horizontally at all, so it's
meaningless to talk
about which one is higher (I think this is what you're calling
NOT_ENOUGH_INFO).
min(s[UP].distance(t[DOWN]), s[DOWN].distance(t[UP])) > 0
means that the objects intersect.
s[UP].distance(t[DOWN]) <= 0 and s[DOWN].distance(t[UP]) > 0
means that s is below t
t[UP].distance(s[DOWN]) <= 0 and t[DOWN].distance(s[UP]) > 0
means that t is below s
the e-num gets this info from one call to distance. I can use the
method you propose, but don't you think that'd cause a performance hit?
Won't you need two skyline comparisons anyway? If T's up skyline is always above S's down skyline, then S and T may intersect but you won't know until you've compared T's down skyline with S's up skyline. Anyway, I'm always in favor of writing simple code first and then optimizing once things have been measured.
Cheers,
Joe