Follow-up Comment #1, patch #1141 (project wesnoth):
Overall, the patch looks fine, a quadtree is indeed the way to go in my
opinion. A few things I have noticed:
First (but I guess this one you already know), use a more compact
representation for quadtree::tree.
Second, your halting condition ((rx - lx) * (ry - ly) > 48) seems dubious to
me. Why is it not (rx - lx + 1) * (ry - ly + 1)? How did you decide on 48?
Third, in quadtree::rects_ex, I don't understand the computation of tw and
th. I would have expected them to finish with - x and - y instead of - 1 - x
and - 1 - y. And similarly, I would have expected the assertions to be x + tw
<= w and y + th <= h instead of x + tw < w and y + th < h.
Fourth, in quadtree::rects_ex again, you don't have to erase the first column
and then reparse it, you could directly jump to the end of it and continue
from there. That's just an optimization though.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/patch/?1141>
_______________________________________________
Message posté via/par Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-bugs mailing list
Wesnoth-bugs@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-bugs
