Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should Feature derive from Bounds? #60

Open
clarisma opened this issue Nov 19, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Should Feature derive from Bounds? #60

clarisma opened this issue Nov 19, 2022 · 0 comments
Labels
clarify Spec is unclear about behavior

Comments

@clarisma
Copy link
Owner

It would make sense, but the tricky part are the default methods of Bounds:

  • contains: feature.contains(otherFeature) is ambiguous -- it isn't clear that this check only applies to the bboxes of the features
  • intersects: feature.intersects(otherFeature) is also ambiguous, it returns true if only the bboxes intersect, but user might expect a geometry intersection test

Maybe keep Bounds simple and implement these as static methods in Box?

@clarisma clarisma added the clarify Spec is unclear about behavior label Nov 19, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clarify Spec is unclear about behavior
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant