John Machin wrote: > OTTOMH, in a rush to go out: never mind Pythonic, following apply to > any language: > (1) accuracy: (a) sue me if I'm wrong, but I think you need range(dx+1) > so that the dx pixel is filled in Hmm. I think you're right. Thanks. > (b) a few more digits after 0.71 > might be useful Sine of 45 degrees is actually .707... I rounded up, since I was using <=. Figured that would make it clear. > (2) efficiency: seems that range(dy, dx+1) would save some wear & tear > on the circuitry :-) It took me a few minutes to figure out waht you meant here. This will certainly help reduce the repeated coordinates. Thanks, again.
> (3) legibility: there's no prize for the script with the absolutely > minimum number of space characters :-) True. I assume your saying I should make cx,cy,dx, and dy better names. I probably will. Up to now I was just playing around with this, and not really expecting anyone else to read it. > I think I've got an article on better Bresenham somewhere in the > archives; will dig it out later. I'd definitely appreciate it. In fact, I'm trying to find a decent sphere version, and getting nowhere with google. I tried to figure it out on my own, and ended up with 48 coordinates for each valid test. I'm not sure if that's right. Lee -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
