Re: Type-free Circles and Ellipses [T]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:51:15 GMT, topmind_at_technologist.com (Topmind) wrote:

>A Topmind view of shapes:
>
>I defined an ellipse as "a rectangle with a
>100 percent smoothing factor", and a circle
>as "a square with a 100 percent smoothing
>factor". This is a "has-a" viewpoint. A rectangle
>has-a zero percent smoothing and an ellipse
>has-a 100 percent.
>
>You can get all kinds of nice hybrids
>("tweeners") that way. Possibilities
>open up if you move away from is-a
>thinking.
>
>However, I don't think it is practical
>to define an explicit case for circle
>when an ellipse can satisfy that.
>
>An even more generic approach to shapes
>is a bunch of "segments" where the segments
>can be curves or strait lines. In that
>approach you don't really need even an
>"ellipse type", because it can be made
>out of four curved segments.
>
>Add the continious smoothing to this
>mix, and you can get just about any shape.
>If fact, the smoothing may be able to
>replace curves by having a "bleed factor".
>the bleed factor may work better if
>we define nodes instead of segments.
>This needs a bit more exploration.
>
>Thus, one does not even need "types"
>for shapes. A shape is just a variable
>number of segments (or nodes), in which each
>segment has indepedent attributes.

So all shapes have same type?

[ A mighty tune comes in mind:

ALL IS SHAPE Chorus:

ALL IS OBJECT (:-))
]

BTW. How would you calculate the perimeter of a shape? How many segments should have the shape built from the modified Bessel function?

I know that you are aginst OO. It seems that you are against ADT too. Right?

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov Received on Mon Aug 27 2001 - 10:40:47 CEST