CGAL users discussion list

[Peter Hachenberger <>]

I fixed the bug. Do you need the fixed code?

Peter

On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 22:50 +0800, Max wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Thank you for your quick help!  It's really a good news for me that
> I seemed not to be COMPLETELY wrong. :-)
> 
> From the changes you've made on the code, if I understand 
> correctly, the definition of them could be refined further
> as follows:
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> For a given Nef_polyhedron_3 N,
> with interior(N), one gets the volume(s) that N originally has, without 
>       any boundary item
> with boundary(N), one gets the complete boundary of N, no matter wheather 
>       they are originally included in N, without any volume.
> with enclosure(N), one gets the volume(s) that N originally has, with the 
>       complete boundary of it
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> If they are incorrect, partially or completely, please let me know.
> Thanks again for your help.
> 
> >Hi Max,
> >
> >> From the doc, I get the brief definitions of them:
> >> 
> >> interior():With interior() one deselects all boundary items.
> >> closure():with closure() one selects all boundary items.
> >> boundary():with boundary() one deselects all volumes.
> >
> >I found that in the documentation and have to admit that the description
> >is too simple. I will change it. It should be:
> >
> >interior: deselect all boundary items
> >boundary: select all boundary items, deselect all volumes
> >closure(N) = complement(interior(complement(N)))
> >
> >This complies with the mathematical operations.
> >
> >So your testcode could be as follows:
> >  
> >  Nef_polyhedron N_1(Plane_3( 1, 0, 0,-1), Nef_polyhedron::INCLUDED);
> >  Nef_polyhedron N_2(Plane_3( 1, 0, 0,-1), Nef_polyhedron::EXCLUDED);
> >  Nef_polyhedron N_pl = N_1 - N_2;           // a plane slice
> >  Nef_polyhedron N_empty(Nef_polyhedron::EMPTY);
> >
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_1.interior() == N_2);
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_2.interior() == N_2);
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_pl.interior() == N_empty);
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_1.closure() == N_1);
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_2.closure() == N_1);
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_pl.closure() == N_pl);
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_1.boundary() == N_pl);
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_2.boundary() == N_pl);
> >  CGAL_assertion(N_pl.boundary() == N_pl);
> >
> >As you can see, there are a few lines, which remained unchanged. I
> >tested the code and also had problems. 
> 
> It's still not clear for me. You mean the 'problem' is just the 
> 'correct' result or it will be solved/refined later?
> 
> >It works nicely for the standard
> >kernels, but using an extended kernel, the special handling of the
> >infimaximal box causes problems. I guess you need the topological
> >operations combined with the extended kernel, don't you? 
> 
> What I really need is just the capability of input of data
> with double data type and perform some bool operation. Runnability
> and performance is more important than exactness in my current 
> application.
> 
> >
> >Peter
> >-- 
> >You are currently subscribed to cgal-discuss.
> >To unsubscribe or access the archives, go to
> >https://lists-sop.inria.fr/wws/info/cgal-discuss
> >