2D Segment Delaunay Graphs

*Menelaos Karavelas*

31.1 | Definitions | ||||

31.2 | Software Design | ||||

31.3 | The Geometric Traits | ||||

31.4 | The Segment Delaunay Graph Hierarchy | ||||

31.5 | Examples | ||||

31.5.1 First Example | |||||

31.5.2 Second Example | |||||

31.5.3 Third Example |

This chapter describes the two-dimensional segment Delaunay graph package of CGAL. We start with a few definitions in Section 31.1. The software design of the 2D segment Delaunay graph package is described in Section 31.2. In Section 31.3 we discuss the geometric traits of the 2D segment Delaunay graph package and in Section 31.4 the segment Delaunay graph hierarchy, a data structure suitable for fast nearest neighbor queries, is briefly described.

The 2D segment Delaunay graph package of CGAL is designed to
compute the Delaunay graph of a set of possibly intersecting segments
on the plane. Although we compute the Delaunay graph, we
will often refer to its dual, the segment Voronoi diagram, since it is
easier to explain and understand. The algorithm that has been
implemented is incremental. The corresponding CGAL class is called
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<SegmentDelaunayGraphTraits_2,SegmentDelaunayGraphStructure_2>*
and will be discussed in more detail in the sequel. The interested
reader may want to refer to the paper by Karavelas
[Kar04] for the general idea as well as the details of
the algorithm implemented.

**Definitions.**
Before describing the details of the implementation we make a brief
introduction to the theory of segment Delaunay graphs and segment
Voronoi diagrams.
The segment Voronoi diagram is defined over a set of non-intersecting
sites, which can either be points or linear segments, which we assume
that are given through their endpoints. The segment Voronoi diagram a
subdivision of the plane into connected regions, called *cells*,
associated with the sites. The dual graph of the segment Voronoi
diagram is called the segment Delaunay graph. The cell of a site $$*t _{i}*
is the locus of points on the plane that are closer to $$

$$* (x,t _{i})= x-t_{i} , *

whereas if $$*t _{i}*, is a segment, then

$$* (x,t _{i})=*min$$

where $$* · * denotes the Euclidean norm.
It can easily be seen that it is a generalization of the Voronoi
diagram for points.

In many applications the restriction that sites are non-intersecting
is too strict. Often we want to allow segments that touch at their
endpoints, or even segments that overlap or intersect properly at
their interior (for example, see Fig. 31.1). Allowing such
configurations poses certain problems. More specifically, when we allow
segments to touch at their endpoints we may end up with pairs of
segments whose bisector is two-dimensional. If we allow pairs of
segments that intersect properly at their interior, the interiors of
their Voronoi cells are no longer simply connected. In both cases
above the resulting Voronoi diagrams are no longer instances of
abstract Voronoi diagrams (cf. [Kle89]), which has a direct
consequence on the efficient computation of the corresponding Voronoi
diagram. The remedy to these problems is to consider linear segments
not as one object, but rather as three, namely the two endpoints and
the interior. This choice guarantees that all bisectors in the Voronoi
diagram are one-dimensional and that all Voronoi cells are simply
connected. Moreover, we further distinguish between two cases,
according to the type of intersecting pair that our input data set
contains. A pair of sites is called *weakly intersecting* if they
a single common point and this common point does not lie in the
interior of any of the two sites. A pair of sites is called
*strongly intersecting* if they intersect and they either have
more than one common point or their common point lies in the interior
of at least one of the two sites. As it will be seen later the two
cases have different representation (and thus storage) requirements,
as well as they require a somehow different treatment on how the
predicates are evaluated. Having made the distinction between weakly
and strongly intersecting sites, and having said that segment sites
are treated as three objects, we are now ready to precisely define the
Delaunay graph we compute. Given a set $$ of input sites,
let $$* _{}* be the set of points and
(open) segments in the arrangement $$

The segment Delaunay graph is uniquely defined once we
have the segment Voronoi diagram. If the all sites are in
*general position*, then Delaunay graph is a graph with triangular
faces away from the convex hull of the set of sites. To unify our approach
and handling of the Delaunay graph we add to the set of (finite) sites
a fictitious site at infinity, which we call the
*site at infinity*. We can then connect all vertices of the outer
face of the Delaunay graph to the site at infinity which gives us
a graph with the property that all of its faces are now
triangular. However, the Delaunay graph is not a triangulation for
two main reasons: we cannot always embed it on the plane with straight
line segments that yield a triangulation and, moreover, we may have two
faces of the graph that have two edges in common, which is not allowed
in a triangulation.

We would like to finish our brief introduction to the theory of
segment Delaunay graphs and segment Voronoi diagrams by discussing the
concept of general position. We say that a set of sites is in general
position if no two triplets of sites have the same tritangent Voronoi
circle. This statement is rather technical and it is best understood
in the context of points. The equivalent statement for points is that
we have no two triplets of points that define the same circumcircle,
or equivalently that no four points are co-circular. The statement
about general position made above is a direct generalization of the
(much simpler to understand) statement about points. On the contrary,
when we have sites in degenerate position, the Delaunay graph has faces
with more than three edges on their boundary. We can get a
triangulated version of the Delaunay graph by simply *triangulating*
the corresponding faces in an arbitrary way. In fact the algorithm
that has been implemented in CGAL has the property that it always
returns a valid *triangulated* version of the segment Delaunay graph.
By valid we mean that it contains the actual (non-triangulated)
Delaunay graph, and whenever there are faces with more than three faces
then they are triangulated. The way that they are triangulated depends
on the order of insertion of the sites in the diagram.

One final remark has to be made with respect to the difference between
the set of *input sites* and the set of *output sites*. The
set of input sites consists of the closed sites that the user inserts
in the diagram. Since segment sites are treated as three objects,
internally our algorithm sees only points and open segments. As a
result, from the point of view of the algorithm, the input sites have
no real meaning. What has real meaning is the set of sites that
correspond to cells of the Voronoi diagram and this is the set of
output sites.

**Degenerate Dimensions.**
The dimension of the segment Delaunay graph is in general 2. The
exceptions to this rule are as follows:

- The dimension is $$
*-1*if the segment Delaunay graph contains no sites. - The dimension is $$
*0*if the segment Delaunay graph contains exactly one (output) site. - The dimension is $$
*1*is the segment Delaunay graph contains exactly two (output) sites.

The 2D segment Delaunay graph class
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<SegmentDelaunayGraphTraits_2,SegmentDelaunayGraphDataStructure_2>*
follows the design of the triangulation package of CGAL. It is
parametrized by two arguments:

- the
**geometric traits**class. It provides the basic geometric objects involved in the algorithm, such as sites, points etc. It also provides the geometric predicates for the computation of the segment Delaunay graph, as well as some basic constructions that can be used, for example, to visualize the diagram. The geometric traits for the segment Delaunay graph will be discussed in more detail in the next section. - the
**segment Delaunay graph data structure**. This is essentially the same as the Apollonius graph data structure (discussed in Chapter 32.2), augmented with some additional operations that are specific to segment Voronoi diagrams. The corresponding concept is that of*SegmentDelaunayGraphDataStructure_2*, which in fact is a refinement of the*ApolloniusGraphDataStructure_2*concept. The class*Triangulation_data_structure_2<Vb,Fb>*is a model of the concept*SegmentDelaunayGraphDataStructure_2*. A default value for the corresponding template parameter is provided, so the user does not need to specify it.

**Strongly Intersecting Sites and their Representation.**
As we have mentioned above, the segment Delaunay graph package of
CGAL is designed to support the computation of the segment Voronoi
diagram even when the input segment sites are intersecting. This
choice poses certain issues for the design of the software
package. The major concern is the representation of the subsegments
that appear in the arrangement of the these sites, because the sites
in the arrangement are the ones over which the diagram is actually
defined. A direct consequence of the choice of representation is the
algebraic degree of the predicates involved in the computation of the
segment Delaunay graph, as well as the storage requirements for the
subsegments and points on intersection in the arrangement.

The case of weakly intersecting sites does not require any special
treatment. We can simply represent points by their coordinates and
segments by their endpoints.
In the case of strongly intersecting sites,
the obvious choice to use the afore-mentioned representation
has severe disadvantages. Consider two
strongly intersecting segments $$*t _{i}* and $$

Such a behavior is obviously undesirable. For robustness, efficiency, and scalability purposes, it is critical that the bit size of the algebraic expressions in the predicates does not depend on the input size. For this reason, as well as for others to be discussed below, we decided to represent sites in a implicit manner, which somehow encodes the history of their construction. In particular, we exploit the fact that points of intersection always lie on two input segments, and that segments that are not part of the input are always supported by input segments.

For example, let us consider the configuration in
Fig. 31.2. We assume that the segments
$$*t _{i}=p_{i}q_{i}*, $$

The five different presentations, two for points (coordinates; two
input segments) and three for segments (two input points; two input
segments, an input point and a boolean; three input segments),
form a closed set of representations and thus represent
any point of intersection or subsegment regardless of the number of
input segments. Moreover, every point (input or intersection) has
homogeneous coordinates of bit size at most $$*3b+O(1)*.
The supporting lines of the segments (they are needed in some of
the predicates) have coefficients which are always of bit size
$$*2b+O(1)*. As a result, the bit size of the expressions involved in
our predicates will always be $$*O(b)*, independently of the
size of the input.
The *SegmentDelaunayGraphSite_2* concept encapsulates the ideas
presented above. A site is represented in this concept by up to four
points and a boolean, or up to six points, depending on its type. The
class *Segment_Delaunay_graph_site_2<K>* implements this
concept.

Even this representation, however, has some degree of redundancy. The
endpoint of a segment appears in both the representation of the (open)
segment site as well as the representation of the point site
itself. The situation becomes even worse in the presence of strongly
intersecting sites: a
point may appear in the representation of multiple subsegments and/or
points of intersection. To avoid this redundancy, input points are
stored in a container, and the various types of sites (input points
and segments, points of intersection, subsegments with one or two
points of intersection as endpoints) only store handles to the points
in the container. This is achieved by the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_storage_site_2<Gt>* class which is a
model of the corresponding concept:
*SegmentDelaunayGraphStorageSite_2*. This concept enforces a site
to be represented by up to 6 handles (which are very lightweight
objects) instead of 6 points, which are, compared to handles of
course, very heavy objects.

**Optimizing Memory Allocation.**
There are applications where we know beforehand that the input
consists of only weakly intersecting sites. In these cases the site
representation described above poses a significant overhead in the
memory requirements of our implementation: instead of representing
sites with up to two points (or ultimately with to two handles), we
require sites to store six points (respectively, six handles). To
avoid this overhead we have introduced two series of traits classes:

- One that supports the full-fledged sites, and is suitable when
the input consists of strongly intersecting sites. This series
consists of the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_traits_2<K,MTag>*and*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>*classes. - One that is customized for input that contain only weakly
intersecting sites. This series consists of the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_traits_without_intersections_2<K,MTag>*and*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_without_intersections_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>*classes.

- When the user chooses to use one of the traits classes in the second series we only store two handles per site. This implies a reduction by a factor of three in the memory allocated per site with respect to the first series of traits classes.
- In the case of the first series of traits classes, we can better exploit the knowledge that have strongly intersecting sites, in order to further apply geometric filters (see below) during the evaluation of the predicates. On the contrary, if the second series of traits classes is used, we can avoid geometric filtering tests that have meaning only in the case of strongly intersecting sites.

The predicates required for the computation of the segment Voronoi
diagram are rather complicated. It is not the purpose of this document to
discuss them in detail. The interested reader may refer to Burnikel's
thesis [Bur96], where it is shown that in the case of weakly
intersecting sites represented in homogeneous coordinates of bit size
$$*b*, the maximum bit size of the algebraic expressions involved in the
predicates is $$*40 b+O(1)*. Given our site representation given above we
can guarantee that even in the case of strongly intersecting sites,
the algebraic degree of the predicates remains $$*O(b)*, independently
of the size of the input. What we want to focus in the remainder of
this section are the different kinds of filtering techniques that we
have employed in our implementation.

**Geometric Filtering.**
Our representation of sites is coupled very naturally, with what we
call *geometric filtering*. The technique
amounts to performing simple geometric tests exploiting the
representation of our data, as well as the geometric structure
inherent in our problem, in order to evaluate predicates in seemingly
degenerate configurations. Geometric filtering can be seen as a
preprocessing step before performing arithmetic filtering.
Roughly speaking, by arithmetic filtering we mean that we first try to
evaluate the predicates using a fixed-precision floating-point number
type (such as `double`), and at the same time keep error bounds on
the numerical errors of the computations we perform. If the numerical
errors are too big and do not permit us to evaluate the predicate, we
switch to an exact number type, and repeat the evaluation of the
predicate. Geometric filtering can help by eliminating situations in
which the arithmetic filter will fail, thus decreasing the number
of times we need to evaluate a predicate using exact arithmetic.

To illustrate the application and effectiveness of this approach,
let us consider a very simple example usage.
Suppose we want to determine if two non-input points are
identical (we assume here that the input sites are represented by
*double*s). In order to do that we need to compute their
coordinates and compare them. If the two points are identical, the
answer to our question using *double* arithmetic may be
wrong (due to numerical errors), in which case we will have to reside
to the more expensive exact computation. Instead, before testing the
coordinates for equality, we can use the representation of the points
to potentially answer the question. More specifically, and this is the
geometric filtering part of the computation, we can first
test if the defining segments of the two points are the same. If they
are not, then we proceed to comparing their coordinates as
usual. Testing the defining segments for equality does not involve any
arithmetic operations on the input, but rather only comparisons on
*double*s. By performing this very simple test we avoid a
numerically difficult computation, which could be performed
thousands of times during the computation of a Delaunay graph.

Geometric filtering has been implemented in all our models of the
*SegmentDelaunayGraphTraits_2* concept. These models are the
classes:
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_traits_2<K,MTag>*,
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_traits_without_intersections_2<K,MTag>*,
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>* and
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_without_intersections_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>*.

**Arithmetic Filtering.**
As mentioned above, performing computations with exact arithmetic
can be very costly. For this reason we have devoted considerable
effort in implementing different kinds of arithmetic filtering
mechanisms. Presently, there two ways of performing arithmetic
filtering for the predicates involved in the computation of
segment Delaunay graphs:

- The user can define his/her kernel using as number type, a
number type of the form
*CGAL::Filtered_exact<CT,ET>*. Then this kernel can be entered as the first template parameter in the*Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<K,MTag>*or*Segment_Delaunay_graph_without_intersections_2<K,MTag>*class. - The user can define up to three different kernels
*CK*,*FK*and*EK*(default values are provided for most parameters). The first kernel*CK*is used only for constructions. The second kernel*FK*is the filtering kernel: the traits class will attempt to compute the predicates using this kernel. If the filtering kernel fails to successfully compute a predicate, the exact kernel*EK*will be used. These three kernels are then used in the*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>*and*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_without_intersections_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>*classes, which have been implemented using the*Filtered_predicate<EP,FP>*mechanism.

Let's consider once more the classes
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<K,MTag>* and
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_without_intersections_2<K,MTag>*.
The template parameter *MTag* provides another degree of freedom
to the user, who can indicate the type of arithmetic operations to
be used in the evaluation of the predicates. More specifically, in
both classes, *MTag* can be *CGAL::Sqrt_field_tag*, in
which case the predicates will be evaluated using all four basic
arithmetic operations plus square roots; this requires, of course,
that the number type used in the kernel *K* supports these
operations exactly. The second choices are *CGAL::Field_tag* for
the *Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<K,MTag>* class, and
*CGAL::Ring_tag* for the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_without_intersections_2<K,MTag>*
class. In the first case we indicate that we want the predicates to be
computed using only the four basic arithmetic operations, whereas in
the second case we evaluate the predicates using only ring operations.
Again, for the predicates to be evaluated correctly, the number type
used in the kernel *K* must support the corresponding operations
exactly.

The semantics for the template parameters *CM*, *FM* and
*EM* in the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>* and
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_without_intersections_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>*
classes are analogous. With each of these template parameters we can
control the type of arithmetic operations that are going to be used in
calculations involving each of the corresponding kernels *CK*,
*FK* and *EK*. When the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>* is
used the possible values for *CM*, *FM* and *EM* are
*CGAL::Sqrt_field_tag* and *CGAL::Field_tag*, whereas if the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_without_intersections_2<CK,CM,EK,EM,FK,FM>*
class is used, the possible values are *CGAL::Sqrt_field_tag* and
*CGAL::Ring_tag*. The semantics are the same as in the case of the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<K,MTag>* and
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_without_intersections_2<K,MTag>* classes.

The
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_hierarchy_2<SegmentDelaunayGraphTraits_2, SSTag, SegmentDelaunayGraphDataStructure_2>* class is the analogue
of the *Triangulation_hierarchy_2* or the
*Apollonius_graph_hierarchy_2* classes, applied to the segment
Delaunay graph. It consists of a hierarchy of
segment Delaunay graphs constructed in a manner analogous to the
Delaunay hierarchy by Devillers [Dev02]. Unlike the
triangulation hierarchy or the Apollonius graph hierarchy, the
situation here is more complicated because of two factors: firstly,
segments are treated as three objects instead of one (the two
endpoints and the interior of the segments), and secondly, the
presence of strongly intersecting sites complicates significantly the
way the hierarchy is constructed. The interested reader may refer to
the paper by Karavelas [Kar04] for the details of the
construction of the hierarchy.
Another alternative is to have a hybrid hierarchy that consists of the
segment Delaunay graph at the bottom-most level and point Voronoi
diagrams at all other levels. This choice seems to work very well in
practice , primarily because it avoids the overhead of maintaining a
Delaunay graph for segments at the upper levels of the
hierarchy. However, it seems much less likely to be possible to give
any theoretical guarantees for its performance, in contrast to the
hierarchy with segment Delaunay graphs at all levels
(cf. [Kar04]). The user can choose between the two
types of hierarchies by means of the template parameter
*SSTag*. If *SSTag* is set to *false* (which is also the
default value), the upper levels of the hierarchy consist of point
Delaunay graphs. If *SSTag* is set to *true*, we have segment
Delaunay graphs at all levels of the hierarchy.

The class
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_hierarchy_2<SegmentDelaunayGraphTraits_2, SSTag, SegmentDelaunayGraphDataStructure_2>*
has exactly the same interface and functionality as the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<SegmentDelaunayGraphTraits_2,SegmentDelaunayGraphDataStructure_2>*
class. Using the segment Delaunay graph hierarchy involves an
additional cost in space and time for maintaining the hierarchy. Our
experiments have shown that it usually pays off to use the hierarchy
for inputs consisting of more than about 1,000 sites.

The following example shows to use the segment Delaunay graph traits
in conjunction with the *Filtered_exact<CT,ET>* mechanism. In
addition it shows how to use a few of the iterators provided by the
*Segment_Delaunay_graph_2* class in order to count a few
site-related quantities.

File:examples/Segment_Delaunay_graph_2/sdg-count-sites.cpp

#include <CGAL/basic.h> // standard includes #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <cassert> // define the exact number type # include <CGAL/Quotient.h> # include <CGAL/MP_Float.h> typedef CGAL::Quotient<CGAL::MP_Float> ENT; // define the kernels #include <CGAL/Simple_cartesian.h> typedef CGAL::Simple_cartesian<double> CK; typedef CGAL::Simple_cartesian<ENT> EK; // typedefs for the traits and the algorithm #include <CGAL/Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2.h> #include <CGAL/Segment_Delaunay_graph_2.h> typedef CGAL::Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2<CK, /* The construction kernel allows for / and sqrt */ CGAL::Field_with_sqrt_tag, EK, /* The exact kernel supports field ops exactly */ CGAL::Field_tag> Gt; typedef CGAL::Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<Gt> SDG2; using namespace std; int main() { ifstream ifs("data/sitesx.cin"); assert( ifs ); SDG2 sdg; SDG2::Site_2 site; while ( ifs >> site ) { sdg.insert( site ); } ifs.close(); assert( sdg.is_valid(true, 1) ); cout << endl << endl; // print the number of input and output sites cout << "# of input sites : " << sdg.number_of_input_sites() << endl; cout << "# of output sites: " << sdg.number_of_output_sites() << endl; unsigned int n_ipt(0), n_iseg(0), n_opt(0), n_oseg(0), n_ptx(0); // count the number of input points and input segments SDG2::Input_sites_iterator iit; for (iit = sdg.input_sites_begin(); iit != sdg.input_sites_end(); ++iit) { if ( iit->is_point() ) { n_ipt++; } else { n_iseg++; } } // count the number of output points and output segments, as well // as the number of points that are points of intersection of pairs // of strongly intersecting sites SDG2::Output_sites_iterator oit; for (oit = sdg.output_sites_begin(); oit != sdg.output_sites_end(); ++oit) { if ( oit->is_segment() ) { n_oseg++; } else { n_opt++; if ( !oit->is_input() ) { n_ptx++; } } } cout << endl << "# of input segments: " << n_iseg << endl; cout << "# of input points: " << n_ipt << endl << endl; cout << "# of output segments: " << n_oseg << endl; cout << "# of output points: " << n_opt << endl << endl; cout << "# of intersection points: " << n_ptx << endl; return 0; }

The following example shows how to use the segment Delaunay graph hierarchy along with the filtered traits class that supports intersecting sites.

File:examples/Segment_Delaunay_graph_2/sdg-filtered-traits.cpp

#include <CGAL/basic.h> // standard includes #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <cassert> // example that uses the filtered traits and // the segment Delaunay graph hierarchy // choose the kernel #include <CGAL/Simple_cartesian.h> struct Rep : public CGAL::Simple_cartesian<double> {}; // typedefs for the traits and the algorithm #include <CGAL/Segment_Delaunay_graph_hierarchy_2.h> #include <CGAL/Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2.h> struct Gt : public CGAL::Segment_Delaunay_graph_filtered_traits_2<Rep> {}; typedef CGAL::Segment_Delaunay_graph_hierarchy_2<Gt> SDG2; int main() { std::ifstream ifs("data/sites.cin"); assert( ifs ); SDG2 sdg; SDG2::Site_2 site; // read the sites and insert them in the segment Delaunay graph while ( ifs >> site ) { sdg.insert(site); } // validate the segment Delaunay graph assert( sdg.is_valid(true, 1) ); return 0; }

The following example demonstrates how to recover the defining sites for the edges of the Voronoi diagram (which are the duals of the edges of the segment Delaunay graph computed).

File:examples/Segment_Delaunay_graph_2/sdg-voronoi-edges.cpp

#include <CGAL/basic.h> // standard includes #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <cassert> #include <string> // define the kernel #include <CGAL/Simple_cartesian.h> #include <CGAL/Filtered_kernel.h> typedef CGAL::Simple_cartesian<double> CK; typedef CGAL::Filtered_kernel<CK> Kernel; // typedefs for the traits and the algorithm #include <CGAL/Segment_Delaunay_graph_traits_2.h> #include <CGAL/Segment_Delaunay_graph_2.h> typedef CGAL::Segment_Delaunay_graph_traits_2<Kernel> Gt; typedef CGAL::Segment_Delaunay_graph_2<Gt> SDG2; using namespace std; int main() { ifstream ifs("data/sites2.cin"); assert( ifs ); SDG2 sdg; SDG2::Site_2 site; // read the sites from the stream and insert them in the diagram while ( ifs >> site ) { sdg.insert( site ); } ifs.close(); // validate the diagram assert( sdg.is_valid(true, 1) ); cout << endl << endl; /* // now walk through the non-infinite edges of the segment Delaunay // graphs (which are dual to the edges in the Voronoi diagram) and // print the sites defining each Voronoi edge. // // Each oriented Voronoi edge (horizontal segment in the figure // below) is defined by four sites A, B, C and D. // // \ / // \ B / // \ / // C ----------------- D // / \ // / A \ // / \ // // The sites A and B define the (oriented) bisector on which the // edge lies whereas the sites C and D, along with A and B define // the two endpoints of the edge. These endpoints are the Voronoi // vertices of the triples A, B, C and B, A, D. // If one of these vertices is the vertex at infinity the string // "infinite vertex" is printed; the corresponding Voronoi edge is // actually a stright-line or parabolic ray. // The sites below are printed in the order A, B, C, D. */ string inf_vertex("infinite vertex"); char vid[] = {'A', 'B', 'C', 'D'}; SDG2::Finite_edges_iterator eit = sdg.finite_edges_begin(); for (int k = 1; eit != sdg.finite_edges_end(); ++eit, ++k) { SDG2::Edge e = *eit; // get the vertices defining the Voronoi edge SDG2::Vertex_handle v[] = { e.first->vertex( sdg.ccw(e.second) ), e.first->vertex( sdg.cw(e.second) ), e.first->vertex( e.second ), sdg.tds().mirror_vertex(e.first, e.second) }; cout << "--- Edge " << k << " ---" << endl; for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) { // check if the vertex is the vertex at infinity; if yes, print // the corresponding string, otherwise print the site if ( sdg.is_infinite(v[i]) ) { cout << vid[i] << ": " << inf_vertex << endl; } else { cout << vid[i] << ": " << v[i]->site() << endl; } } cout << endl; } return 0; }