Talk:Line clipping

Where is a reference for the efficiency of Liang-Barsky, I was under the impression that it was considerably *less* efficient to do the full problem (should be obvious considering it's a generalisation of the problem to arbitrary clipping regions).

Code credit?

The pseudocode appears to come from http://www-static.cc.gatech.edu/grads/h/Hao-wei.Hsieh/Haowei.Hsieh/code1.html. I believe they should receive credit on the page. Is there any consensus on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.237.230.9 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Algorithm explanations

I think the code should be acompanied by an explanations of the algo. Only code doesn't make too much sense. weedrat 11:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell did the writer choose C sharp anyway? C/C++ is more commonly used and isn't Microsoft-exclusive. 69.124.106.162 04:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C# gives more clean understanding of algorithm than pseudocode
It can be easily converted to C++ or Java or something else ( by hands or via AST transformation )
It's not MS-exclusive, see www.mono-project.com. Jack 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be so easily converted, convert it into a more commonly used language. 74.196.222.79 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/ split

I think the introduction of this article must be either deleted or merged with the mentioned page. Each clipping algorithm should be given a separate page. --Weedrat 08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Lakeworks (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I googled for 'line clipping' because I wanted to read about the processing for clipping lines, I wasn't necessarily interested in how to clip polygons or polyhedrons in 3D. As-is, the article covers all the major algorithms for clipping lines. If they were split into three separate algorithms, I wouldn't have been able to find everything I wanted all in one page. Admittedly, I am only one user, but this page was exactly what I was looking for. -Scott

I agree with Scott here. This page was exactly what I was looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.54.245 (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created new articles for Cohen-Sutherland and Liang-Barsky, but failed to remove the content from this page, due to a bot reverting it. Lakeworks (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirect from Cyrus-Beck to this page should be removed, or the section about Cyrus-Beck should be filled with content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.130.147 (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reg diagram

I have added a simple image. Rocchini (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic Explanation

There are a lot of problems with the explanation and structure of this article. Some portions of it were very hard to understand due to poor grammar, for example the introduction section which I tried to reword. Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to rewrite this article so I thought I should point out these problems here. Thorduragust (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]