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 really great project! As far as I can see, the implementation is cool and clear, and I am willing to use it in CAD projects.
However, I am struggling with the following issues, would you like to take a look? thanks,
usage of Flatten.Utils.EQ
When I dig into the polygon intersect code, I found EQ(Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY, Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY) return false, which is confusing, because in Math, these 2 things are equal.
The implementation in EQ explains, because POSITIVE_INFINITY - POSITIVE_INFINITY will be NaN and return false.
To make better understanding, should EQ return true in this case?
floating point issue
Flatten.js is using float for each storage, like Point.x, Circle.r etc. It can be enhanced to use more accurate numbers in some CAD system. For example, to use decimal.js to accept more large numbers. I know the cost would be high, however, would it be better to provide big decimal option to user?
Thanks,
nine-fox
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Alex,
This is a really great project! As far as I can see, the implementation is cool and clear, and I am willing to use it in CAD projects.
However, I am struggling with the following issues, would you like to take a look? thanks,
When I dig into the polygon intersect code, I found EQ(Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY, Number.POSITIVE_INFINITY) return false, which is confusing, because in Math, these 2 things are equal.
The implementation in EQ explains, because POSITIVE_INFINITY - POSITIVE_INFINITY will be NaN and return false.
To make better understanding, should EQ return true in this case?
Flatten.js is using float for each storage, like Point.x, Circle.r etc. It can be enhanced to use more accurate numbers in some CAD system. For example, to use decimal.js to accept more large numbers. I know the cost would be high, however, would it be better to provide big decimal option to user?
Thanks,
nine-fox
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: