Talk:Catmull–Clark subdivision surface: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Remove non-working OCaml example: Don't remove minor-broken examples; fix if you can!) |
|||
| Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
: Hi, I think candidate for deletion should rather be considering if an implementation is poor at the design point of view. Here the code produces wrong output but the error is probably a minor calculation error somewhere. There is also the Tcl example that produces wrong output on the border of the hole. Borders of holes should be smooth, and on the screenshot we can see that it's not. [[User:Blue Prawn|Blue Prawn]] 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
: Hi, I think candidate for deletion should rather be considering if an implementation is poor at the design point of view. Here the code produces wrong output but the error is probably a minor calculation error somewhere. There is also the Tcl example that produces wrong output on the border of the hole. Borders of holes should be smooth, and on the screenshot we can see that it's not. [[User:Blue Prawn|Blue Prawn]] 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: The Tcl solution is now fixed. It was a problem in the code to update point locations on the edge of the whole (which to be fair isn't actually discussed ''anywhere'' on the WP page or in the literature that I found with only a small amount of searching). The formula I picked seems to give nice-looking results. |
|||
:: In general though, only delete a solution if it is “considered harmful”, i.e., actively promoting bad practices not necessary to the solution of the task. Having a bug is not a sin, and there's no way to persuade people to fix things on any exact schedule. (You could try commenting on the original submitter's talk page; they ''might've'' configured email notifications.) Or try to learn enough OCaml to be able to fix it; the algorithm is complex enough that it remains itself the major challenge. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 20:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||