On 9 Jul 2008, at 5:11 pm, Chris Suter wrote:
You could ignore the mitre limit and assume it was always mitre joint and it would give you a worst case bounds. However, it wouldn't be sensible to do that since the bounds would stretch out excessively for very acute angles.
Without knowing the miter limit's value, the "worst case bounds" would have to be infinitely large. I suppose that could be defined as 'worst case'! As a practical matter it's always going to be something though, and it turns out to be easy to factor it in. I can also avoid doing this if my path joins are round or bevel.
I suggest you have a look at the PDF specification since that's the definitive reference for this stuff.
Yep, I'm just downloading that now.
I think you mean a = 2 * arcsin(w / m) and m = w / sin(a / 2).
Indeed I do - been a long day ;-)
You will need to also take into account of the line width (as I'm sure you do) so I think the combined offset would be best expressed as:max(w / 2, ml * w / 2) where ml is the mitre limit.
That's right, and precisely what I'm doing. Works well enough though for most actual paths is on the generous side (because rarely do angles get that sharp). Still, it's probably a fair compromise between updating more than necessary and going over each path to find the sharpest angle.
cheers, Graham _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
