[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Vertical spacing, distinguish stretchability/compressibility (issue4
From: |
k-ohara5a5a |
Subject: |
Re: Vertical spacing, distinguish stretchability/compressibility (issue4517136) |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Jun 2011 02:43:03 +0000 |
On 2011/06/04 17:32:15, joeneeman wrote:
> When compressing, unstretchable springs never get put on the
> active list, since their blocking_force is 0.
It seems, though, that unstretchable but compressible springs
should be on the active list when compressing.
They are. They have blocking_force -1.0 (compressive) without any
special treatment, and I had forgotten about them when I wrote above.
What about +inf?
I like that concept, but...
The starting condition for simple-spacer is to pull until all springs
unblock, which could then require +inf force, and then the watchdog in
length() accuses me of "cruelty to springs".
I thought about going inf-robust, and retiring that watchdog, but it
looks like that would complicate Simple_spacer::compress().
http://codereview.appspot.com/4517136/
- Vertical spacing, distinguish stretchability/compressibility (issue4517136), joeneeman, 2011/06/04
- Re: Vertical spacing, distinguish stretchability/compressibility (issue4517136), k-ohara5a5a, 2011/06/04
- Re: Vertical spacing, distinguish stretchability/compressibility (issue4517136), joeneeman, 2011/06/04
- Re: Vertical spacing, distinguish stretchability/compressibility (issue4517136),
k-ohara5a5a <=
- Re: Vertical spacing, distinguish stretchability/compressibility (issue4517136), joeneeman, 2011/06/10
- Re: Vertical spacing, distinguish stretchability/compressibility (issue4517136), percival . music . ca, 2011/06/16