feat: initial commit for adding geometry accessor functions #552
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As this is an initial set of functions there are obviously going to be some missing such as the ability to access the third and fourth dimension of a point. This is fine.
I'm still wondering if we want to absorb the legacy names including deprecated behaviors or want to create a cleaner version (that should still have a one to one correspondence to the non-deprecated postgis implementation).
extensions/functions_geometry.yaml
Outdated
| name: geom | ||
| return: boolean | ||
| - | ||
| name: "st_isring" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want easier to read names such as is_ring? The prefix isn't useful as we already have a namespace as we're in the geometry file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also agree that the prefix isn't useful here, but I figured i'd just follow the same names as used in PostGIS. I think @paleolimbot mentioned that it might be better to keep the same names in order to be taken seriously? I'm open to either though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think either is ok...when I was referring to the name similarity I meant the part that comes after the st_. I might perhaps even lean slightly towards dropping the prefix.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ahh gotcha...I'll go ahead and drop the prefix in both the open PRs then!
richtia
requested review from
jacques-n,
cpcloud and
westonpace
as code owners
richtia
force-pushed
the
geometry_accessors
branch
from
fd2f31a
to
c7c69fc
Compare
richtia
force-pushed
the
geometry_accessors
branch
from
c7c69fc
to
2180557
Compare
| - | ||
| name: "dimension" | ||
| description: > | ||
| Return the dimension of the input geometry. If the input is a collection of geometries, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The examples below don't necessarily imply dimension. Could we clarify if a line in 3D space considered one dimensional or three?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe it would still be one dimensional. I don't think this function takes into consideration the dimensionality of the space, only the geometry itself. Maybe @paleolimbot would have a better idea on this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think all we need to do is add text that clarifies that dimension refers to the complexity of the figures in the geometry and not the coordinate system being used.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. Just updated.
PR to geometry accessor geospatial functions