You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is a little philosophical. Can an area of zero height and/or width be said to overlap anything? By definition, it has zero size...
If the assumption is that an area of zero size cannot overlap, however, then ∀a. overlaps(a, a) doesn't necessarily hold. Might it make sense to treat an area of zero size as a point?
It seems like the easiest way to handle this is to make the width and height of the boxes at least 1 when performing the overlap checks. I can't see anything obviously wrong with doing this, it makes the mathematics work, and it doesn't seem to violate any of the existing theorems.
Release: com.io7m.jregions 1.1.0
Code new: Add splitAlongXY method for dividing areas into quadrants.
Code new: Stop using terms such as "horizontally", "vertically", "width", "height", etc. Deprecate methods and add replacements. (tickets: #11)
Code new: Add volume types. (tickets: #9)
Code fix: Fix overlaps() for areas and volumes. (tickets: #12, #14)
Code fix: Fix contains() for areas and volumes. (tickets: #13)
Release: com.io7m.jregions 1.1.0
Code new: Add splitAlongXY method for dividing areas into quadrants.
Code new: Stop using terms such as "horizontally", "vertically", "width", "height", etc. Deprecate methods and add replacements. (tickets: #11)
Code new: Add volume types. (tickets: #9)
Code fix: Fix overlaps() for areas and volumes. (tickets: #12, #14)
Code fix: Fix contains() for areas and volumes. (tickets: #13)
This is a serious issue:
... fails!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: