Re: Introduce Beam_scoring_problem::quant_range, for quickly filtering out invalid positions. (issue4129050)

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Mike Solomon <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:08 AM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> LGTM, but I can't do a regtest today :(
>>>
>>>
>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4129050/diff/1/lily/beam-quanting.cc
>>> File lily/beam-quanting.cc (right):
>>>
>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4129050/diff/1/lily/beam-quanting.cc#newcode215
>>> lily/beam-quanting.cc:215: }
>>> Very cool stuff!
>>> I won't have time to do a regtest today, but I see what you're doing and
>>> it makes a lot of sense.
>>> One suggestion: perhaps we should create an enum:
>>> enum Stem_dir_scenarios { ALL_UP, ALL_DOWN, DOWN_TO_UP, UP_TO_DOWN,
>>> WACKY } that provides a tag for the beam which is then used in this
>>> function.  My rationale is as follows:
>>
>> It's for dealing with UP/UP and DOWN/DOWN configs for the outer stems.
>> Collisions that fall below (for UP/UP) the edges of quant_range will
>> never really collide.  UP/UP and DOWN/DOWN are the normal
>> configurations, so they would account for 99% of the beam cases.
>>
> True, although I think it's important to account for all beaming cases if 
> possible.

This is a performance optimization, ie. a way to run collision
detection without performance impact if the object does not really
collide, so it does not need to deal with all cases.

-- 
Han-Wen Nienhuys - address@hidden - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen