From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <7252c7a5f9fde8702a123a7e4efce78b@vitanuova.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] writing code
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:06:34 +0000
From: rog@vitanuova.com
In-Reply-To: <0ab6a921fcbc154ac8df87a475f6037c@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4d854cd2-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> there's a qualifying conditional at the start of that sentence
> and as with a few early papers it's a rather complex description
> for something that becomes less elaborate with a more abstract interpretation,
> even when the computations are exactly the same!

actually, the next paragraph seems to unqualify the conditional:

: The assumption is quite good for most mattes, though it can be
: improved if we know that the coverage seldom overlaps (adjacent
: segments of a continuous line) or always overlaps (repeated
: application of a picture).  For ease in presentation throughout this
: paper, let us make this assumption and consider the alpha values as
: representing subpixel coverage of opaque objects.

i'd have thought this was rather a useful way of looking at things
when we're talking about graphics primitives which might allow
sub-pixel positioning of anchor points, but currently do not.