Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Graphics Texts etc.
Message-ID: <1990Sep17.015943.18818@cs.UAlberta.CA>
Date: 17 Sep 90 01:59:43 GMT
References: <101880023@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> <23900016@sunc7> <8256@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Sender: news@cs.UAlberta.CA (News Administrator)
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Lines: 15

In article <8256@helios.TAMU.EDU> gordon@cs.tamu.edu (Dan Gordon) writes:
>why does Hearn & Baker use a most inefficient polygon scan conversion 
>algorithm? 

Judging from the other mistakes and miscues in the book, H&B give an
inefficient algorithm either because (1) They didn't understand the 
algorithm, or (2) they didn't want to lift the perfectly good explanation
from Foley & vanDam.

The major reason this book sells, I think, is because it's the best of the
inexpensive/thin books.
--
Chris Shaw     University of Alberta
cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.ca           Now with new, minty Internet flavour!
CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !