On 2020/04/24 21:33:12, Carl wrote: > On 2020/04/24 21:19:57, dak wrote: > > On 2020/04/24 21:18:12, dak wrote: > > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/579630043/diff/555740043/lily/stencil-integral.cc > > > File lily/stencil-integral.cc (right): > > > > > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/579630043/diff/555740043/lily/stencil-integral.cc#newcode465 > > > lily/stencil-integral.cc:465: // more convoluted, but it's fairly hot path. > > > Sorry for not being clear: the question was not why this change was > effective > > in > > > saving time, but why it was valid. When thickness is zero, you only update > > the > > > upper skyline. Why would the lower skyline no longer need updating? > > > > Well, other way round, but apart from that the question stands. > > When thickness is zero, the upper and lower curves are the same. Either one > completes the skyline.
Of course they are the same. That is not the question. The question is why I am considering the identical curve for the minimum skyline while I don't let it participate in the maximum skyline any more. If everything is of thickness null, the maximum skyline will be non-existent while the minimum skyline is there. While the skylines should be identical rather than only one of them being there. https://codereview.appspot.com/579630043/
