Perimeter of a Cylinder

snipped-for-privacy@afc-holcroft.com wrote in news:1102623296.029879.186990 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

It IS 2-dimensional, just not in a flat space. This makes sense, and I think the current behaviour should be kept, rather than removing the capacity. Perhaps change "perimiter" to "length of all edge loops" to emphasize the difference.

I agree that it would be easy to overlook that it is calculating both edges. What you are looking for is it's circumference correct. Maybe they just need a change in terminology. Perimeter could be

Total length of edges:

and I think it would be beneficial to add

Circumference:

You have to remember that not all cylinders have square bottoms. And who is to actually say which end you would want to use as the Perimeter.

Corey

The perimeter of a sphere is 0.000", so at least they are consistent. I would rather have consistency then ask them to write exceptions for different geoemetry - that seems like we'd just be begging for trouble. But I see the point about the confusion - a square with a hole in the middle of it has a larger perimeter than the square itself, and I think I might make a bad assumption if I wasn't paying attention.

If you are going to go into enhancment requests, I like Corey's suggestion of changing the term to 'total length of edges' because that is what is measured. its worth adding the possbility of adding a second 'perimeter' calcuation that would only apply to outer loops of a face. Much of hte time, perimeter would be the same as total length of edges. Cylinders, spheres, and other similar shapes would deliver a perimeter of 'n/a'

Anyway, neat observation!