It asked whether either rectangle enclosed one of the other's four corners --
eight akgl_collide_point_rectangle calls, stopping at the first hit. That is a
different question from "do these overlap", and it has the wrong answer for one
arrangement: a tall thin rectangle crossing a short wide one overlaps in a plus
sign with no corner of either inside the other, and all eight tests said no.
A long thin platform crossing a tall thin character is exactly that shape, so
this is a shape a 2D game produces, not a curiosity. util.h carried an @note
describing it and docs/18-utilities.md had a diagram of it, both under the
heading of a limitation rather than a defect, and there was no test for it at
all -- nor for full containment, nor for a shared edge.
It is four comparisons now, on both axes. `<=` rather than `<` because
akgl_collide_point_rectangle is inclusive on all four edges and these two have
always agreed that touching counts; a span test written with `<` would have
silently changed a contract both the header and the manual state.
The test was written first and failed on the cross before the fix went in.
Two answers change for a caller upgrading, and both are in the header note and
the chapter:
- The cross reports `true`, which is the point.
- The comparison is in float rather than through akgl_Point's int members, so a
sub-pixel overlap is no longer truncated away. A pickup test that was
accidentally forgiving by up to a pixel is no longer forgiving. Both tutorials
use this for coins and hazards; both still pass.
Faster as a side effect rather than a goal, and worth recording because the
numbers move a documented budget: 24.9 ns -> 6.1 overlapping, 57.9 -> 6.1
disjoint, and the all-pairs sweep over 64 actors 115 us -> 12.2. The disjoint
case gained most because it was the one that ran all eight tests before
answering.
The three moved rows are re-recorded in PERFORMANCE.md and nothing else is.
akgl_rectangle_points is untouched by this change and reads 6.1 in the same run
against the 4.0 recorded, so 6 ns is this run's floor and the new figure means
"too cheap to measure" rather than "exactly 6.1" -- said in the prose so the
next reader does not re-baseline the table around it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Code <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
docs/ is a narrative manual, not a second reference. Every header already
carries a substantial @file/@brief block and Doxyfile sets WARN_IF_UNDOCUMENTED
with WARN_AS_ERROR, so an undocumented symbol already fails CI. The gap was
navigation and worked examples. Chapters teach a task and link to the Doxygen
output; where a declaration or a constant table has to be in front of the
reader it arrives as a `c excerpt=` block, so the text *is* the header and
cannot diverge from it. That also preserves the hand-aligned bit-flag tables
scripts/reindent.el goes out of its way not to destroy.
The manual does not re-document its dependencies. libakerror owns the
ATTEMPT/CLEANUP/PROCESS/HANDLE/FINISH protocol, SDL3 owns renderers and events,
Tiled owns the map format, jansson owns json_t. A chapter that restated any of
them would be wrong the day upstream changed and nothing here would notice --
the same drift this work exists to fix, arriving from a different direction. So
each chapter says what libakgl adds or constrains and links out for the rest.
Chapter 4 is the exception and the reason for it: libakerror documents the
mechanism, but only libakgl can say which statuses its own functions raise and
what they mean here, and that was written down nowhere. It carries three tables
-- libakgl's five status codes, the libakerror statuses libakgl actually raises
with their meaning in this library, and the exit-status trap where
`exit(AKGL_ERR_SDL)` is a wait status of 0 because the band starts at 256.
Every chapter was written against src/ rather than against the header comments,
which is how 27 false claims in those comments came to light. Where a chapter
documents a known defect rather than a design decision it says so and points at
TODO.md.
README.md keeps the development process and hands the reader to docs/. Its
task-oriented FAQ is deleted rather than moved, because one source of truth per
topic is the whole point and that FAQ's examples did not compile.
Census: 39 compiled snippets, 89 verbatim header excerpts, 4 JSON documents run
through the real loaders, one linked-and-executed program with its output
compared byte for byte, one generated figure. 11 norun blocks, each justified.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Code <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
