<div dir="ltr">I'd like to wrap this up, if possible.<div><br></div><div>Are the proposed function additions acceptable if I rename them to the following?</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:12.8px">ST_ForcePolygonCW</div><div style="font-size:12.8px">ST_ForcePolygonCCW</div><div style="font-size:12.8px">ST_IsPolygonCW</div><div style="font-size:12.8px">ST_IsPolygonCCW</div></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Dan</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:35 AM, Sandro Santilli <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:strk@kbt.io" target="_blank">strk@kbt.io</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 03:35:05PM -0500, Daniel Baston wrote:<br>
> I'll try to see if I can come up with a less ambiguous name, without<br>
> resorting to<br>
> ST_<wbr>ForcePolygonsClockwiseExterior<wbr>RingAndCounterClockwiseInterio<wbr>rRings, but<br>
> I'll also note that the proposed terminology has been used by PostGIS<br>
> internally since 2010:<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://github.com/postgis/postgis/commit/2d07d7eb59d2bb8db9d4773cd84619cd696bc471" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/postgis/<wbr>postgis/commit/<wbr>2d07d7eb59d2bb8db9d4773cd84619<wbr>cd696bc471</a><br>
<br>
</span>Interesting, that one turned LWGEOM_forceRHR_poly<br>
into LWGEOM_force_clockwise_poly. In 2010 I was<br>
distracted, or I'd have suggested to just add<br>
documentation in the header file :)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
--strk;<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
postgis-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:postgis-devel@lists.osgeo.org">postgis-devel@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>