[GitHub] [lucene] iverase commented on issue #11767: Does the method #cureLocalIntersections in the Tessellator make any sense?

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

iverase commented on issue #11767:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/11767#issuecomment-1248975086

   >The method was originally introduced to postpone self intersection removal 
   
   I don't understand this. We re claiming in the java docs that polygons should not be self-intersecting and we do not introduce self-intersections in our code, why we want to remove them?
   
   ```
    * <ul>
    *   <li>Requires valid polygons:
    *       <ul>
    *         <li>No self intersections
    *         <li>Holes may only touch at one vertex
    *         <li>Polygon must have an area (e.g., no "line" boxes)
    *         <li>sensitive to overflow (e.g, subatomic values such as E-200 can cause unexpected
    *             behavior)
    *       </ul>
    * </ul>
   ```
   Looking at the original code which the tessellator is inspired on, the method was introduced to handle some OSM polygons that contain self-intersections, hence not valid: https://github.com/mapbox/earcut/issues/8
   As we claim we only support valid polygons, I think it is safe to remove the method entirely.
   
   @llermaly I found this issue by looking into one of your polygons so we should expect nice performance improvements.
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help@lucene.apache.org