> On Apr 28, 2023, at 2:57 PM, Martin Davis <mtncl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 7:18 AM Sandro Santilli <s...@kbt.io > <mailto:s...@kbt.io>> wrote: >> >> As mentioned in chat, I'm thinking having a GEOSCoverage >> datatype would be advisible here, with one constructor >> taking a vector of Geometry pointer for now but eventually >> getting more constructors. > > Sandro, are you suggesting a GEOSCoverage type containing a *topological* > structure, or one containing a set of Polygons/MultiPolygons? > > For a topological structure, that may be useful, but that is a fair bit of > work and is NOT required by the recent coverage functions. If and when this > is done, I suggest it is called GEOSTopology to be totally clear. > > For a coverage type that simply contains a list of polygonal geometries, that > is what I have called a Simple Features Coverage. GEOSCoverage would be a > fine name for this. This is actually what I considered at the start of > developing the various coverage operations. I backed away from this in order > to keep things simple. But it does have some advantages for understanding > and documenting the concept of a simple coverage.
We had a little discussion of something much like this when bringing these functions into GEOS CAPI, whether to use a GeometryList as a container, which except for the name, is basically all a GEOSSimpleCoverage container would be doing too. In the end, I was persuaded that a super lightweight approach was better than adding another scruff of a type. P > > _______________________________________________ > postgis-devel mailing list > postgis-de...@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
