tracyhammond
commented
9 years ago no, but it is nice if it can be a shape like everything else. i would prefer that.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 1:05 AM, dtracers notifications@github.com wrote:
is there any reason why a Stroke should be interpreted? I was always thinking that the stroke itself can not be interpreted but is instead contained within a shape that is interpreted.
That way from a recognition flow we can always say that if a recognizer is given a stroke it has not been recognized and if it is a shape that means it has at least been recognized from a single stroke.
It adds one layer of containment but I think it simplifies state management for recognition. and for dealing with potentially unrecognized objects and recognized objects.
Also this means that strokes can contain shapes which is just odd.... I will make a different issue about strokes containing strokes and segmentation so that is not part of this discussion topic.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/tracyhammond/SRLShapes/issues/10.
is there any reason why a Stroke should be interpreted? I was always thinking that the stroke itself can not be interpreted but is instead contained within a shape that is interpreted.
That way from a recognition flow we can always say that if a recognizer is given a stroke it has not been recognized and if it is a shape that means it has at least been recognized from a single stroke.
It adds one layer of containment but I think it simplifies state management for recognition. and for dealing with potentially unrecognized objects and recognized objects.
Also this means that strokes can contain shapes which is just odd.... I will make a different issue about strokes containing strokes and segmentation so that is not part of this discussion topic.