from typing import Iterable

def pnpoly(verts, x, y):
    #check if x and/or y is iterable
    xit, yit = isinstance(x, Iterable), isinstance(y, Iterable)
    #if not iterable, make an iterable of length 1
    X = x if xit else (x, )
    Y = y if yit else (y, )
    #store verts length as a range to juggle j
    r = range(len(verts))
    #final results if x or y is iterable
    results = []
    #traverse x and y coordinates
    for xp in X:
        for yp in Y:
            c = 0 #reset c at every new position
            for i in r:
                j = r[i-1] #set j to position before i
                #store a few arguments to shorten the if statement
                yneq       = (verts[i][1] > yp) != (verts[j][1] > yp)
                xofs, yofs = (verts[j][0] - verts[i][0]), (verts[j][1] - verts[i][1])
                #if we have crossed a line, increment c
                if (yneq and (xp < xofs * (yp - verts[i][1]) / yofs + verts[i][0])):
                    c += 1
            #if c is odd store the coordinates        
            if c%2:
                results.append((xp, yp))
    #return either coordinates or a bool, depending if x or y was an iterable
    return results if (xit or yit) else bool(c%2)

这个python版本是通用的。您可以为True/False结果输入单个x和单个y值，也可以使用x和y的范围来遍历整个点网格。如果使用范围，则返回所有True点的x/y对列表。vertices参数需要一个由x/y对组成的二维Iterable，例如:[(x1,y1)， (x2,y2)，…]

使用示例:

vertices = [(25,25), (75,25), (75,75), (25,75)]
pnpoly(vertices, 50, 50) #True
pnpoly(vertices, range(100), range(100)) #[(25,25), (25,26), (25,27), ...]

实际上，这些都可以。

pnpoly(vertices, 50, range(100)) #check 0 to 99 y at x of 50
pnpoly(vertices, range(100), 50) #check 0 to 99 x at y of 50

Obj-C版本nirg的答案与样本方法测试点。Nirg的回答对我很有效。

- (BOOL)isPointInPolygon:(NSArray *)vertices point:(CGPoint)test {
    NSUInteger nvert = [vertices count];
    NSInteger i, j, c = 0;
    CGPoint verti, vertj;

    for (i = 0, j = nvert-1; i < nvert; j = i++) {
        verti = [(NSValue *)[vertices objectAtIndex:i] CGPointValue];
        vertj = [(NSValue *)[vertices objectAtIndex:j] CGPointValue];
        if (( (verti.y > test.y) != (vertj.y > test.y) ) &&
        ( test.x < ( vertj.x - verti.x ) * ( test.y - verti.y ) / ( vertj.y - verti.y ) + verti.x) )
            c = !c;
    }

    return (c ? YES : NO);
}

- (void)testPoint {

    NSArray *polygonVertices = [NSArray arrayWithObjects:
        [NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(13.5, 41.5)],
        [NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(42.5, 56.5)],
        [NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(39.5, 69.5)],
        [NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(42.5, 84.5)],
        [NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(13.5, 100.0)],
        [NSValue valueWithCGPoint:CGPointMake(6.0, 70.5)],
        nil
    ];

    CGPoint tappedPoint = CGPointMake(23.0, 70.0);

    if ([self isPointInPolygon:polygonVertices point:tappedPoint]) {
        NSLog(@"YES");
    } else {
        NSLog(@"NO");
    }
}

我已经做了nirg的c++代码的Python实现:

输入

Bounding_points:组成多边形的节点。 Bounding_box_positions:筛选的候选点。(在我从边界框创建的实现中。 (输入为元组列表，格式为:[(xcord, ycord)，…])

返回

多边形内的所有点。

def polygon_ray_casting(self, bounding_points, bounding_box_positions):
    # Arrays containing the x- and y-coordinates of the polygon's vertices.
    vertx = [point[0] for point in bounding_points]
    verty = [point[1] for point in bounding_points]
    # Number of vertices in the polygon
    nvert = len(bounding_points)
    # Points that are inside
    points_inside = []

    # For every candidate position within the bounding box
    for idx, pos in enumerate(bounding_box_positions):
        testx, testy = (pos[0], pos[1])
        c = 0
        for i in range(0, nvert):
            j = i - 1 if i != 0 else nvert - 1
            if( ((verty[i] > testy ) != (verty[j] > testy))   and
                    (testx < (vertx[j] - vertx[i]) * (testy - verty[i]) / (verty[j] - verty[i]) + vertx[i]) ):
                c += 1
        # If odd, that means that we are inside the polygon
        if c % 2 == 1: 
            points_inside.append(pos)


    return points_inside

同样，这个想法也是从这里得来的

David Segond's answer is pretty much the standard general answer, and Richard T's is the most common optimization, though therre are some others. Other strong optimizations are based on less general solutions. For example if you are going to check the same polygon with lots of points, triangulating the polygon can speed things up hugely as there are a number of very fast TIN searching algorithms. Another is if the polygon and points are on a limited plane at low resolution, say a screen display, you can paint the polygon onto a memory mapped display buffer in a given colour, and check the color of a given pixel to see if it lies in the polygons.

像许多优化一样，这些优化是基于特定情况而不是一般情况，并且基于摊销时间而不是单次使用产生效益。

在这个领域工作，我发现约瑟夫·奥鲁克斯的《计算几何》在C' ISBN 0-521-44034-3是一个很大的帮助。

我知道这是旧的，但这里是一个在Cocoa实现的光线投射算法，如果有人感兴趣的话。不确定这是最有效的方法，但它可能会帮助别人。

- (BOOL)shape:(NSBezierPath *)path containsPoint:(NSPoint)point
{
    NSBezierPath *currentPath = [path bezierPathByFlatteningPath];
    BOOL result;
    float aggregateX = 0; //I use these to calculate the centroid of the shape
    float aggregateY = 0;
    NSPoint firstPoint[1];
    [currentPath elementAtIndex:0 associatedPoints:firstPoint];
    float olderX = firstPoint[0].x;
    float olderY = firstPoint[0].y;
    NSPoint interPoint;
    int noOfIntersections = 0;

    for (int n = 0; n < [currentPath elementCount]; n++) {
        NSPoint points[1];
        [currentPath elementAtIndex:n associatedPoints:points];
        aggregateX += points[0].x;
        aggregateY += points[0].y;
    }

    for (int n = 0; n < [currentPath elementCount]; n++) {
        NSPoint points[1];

        [currentPath elementAtIndex:n associatedPoints:points];
        //line equations in Ax + By = C form
        float _A_FOO = (aggregateY/[currentPath elementCount]) - point.y;  
        float _B_FOO = point.x - (aggregateX/[currentPath elementCount]);
        float _C_FOO = (_A_FOO * point.x) + (_B_FOO * point.y);

        float _A_BAR = olderY - points[0].y;
        float _B_BAR = points[0].x - olderX;
        float _C_BAR = (_A_BAR * olderX) + (_B_BAR * olderY);

        float det = (_A_FOO * _B_BAR) - (_A_BAR * _B_FOO);
        if (det != 0) {
            //intersection points with the edges
            float xIntersectionPoint = ((_B_BAR * _C_FOO) - (_B_FOO * _C_BAR)) / det;
            float yIntersectionPoint = ((_A_FOO * _C_BAR) - (_A_BAR * _C_FOO)) / det;
            interPoint = NSMakePoint(xIntersectionPoint, yIntersectionPoint);
            if (olderX <= points[0].x) {
                //doesn't matter in which direction the ray goes, so I send it right-ward.
                if ((interPoint.x >= olderX && interPoint.x <= points[0].x) && (interPoint.x > point.x)) {  
                    noOfIntersections++;
                }
            } else {
                if ((interPoint.x >= points[0].x && interPoint.x <= olderX) && (interPoint.x > point.x)) {
                     noOfIntersections++;
                } 
            }
        }
        olderX = points[0].x;
        olderY = points[0].y;
    }
    if (noOfIntersections % 2 == 0) {
        result = FALSE;
    } else {
        result = TRUE;
    }
    return result;
}

bobobobo引用的Eric Haines的文章真的很棒。特别有趣的是比较算法性能的表格;角度求和法和其他方法比起来真的很差。同样有趣的是，使用查找网格将多边形进一步细分为“in”和“out”扇区的优化可以使测试非常快，即使是在> 1000条边的多边形上。

不管怎样，现在还为时过早，但我的投票倾向于“交叉”方法，我认为这几乎就是Mecki所描述的。然而，我发现大卫·伯克(David Bourke)对它进行了最简洁的描述和编纂。我喜欢它不需要真正的三角函数，它适用于凸和凹，而且随着边数的增加，它的表现也相当不错。

顺便说一下，这是Eric Haines文章中的一个性能表，在随机多边形上进行测试。

                       number of edges per polygon
                         3       4      10      100    1000
MacMartin               2.9     3.2     5.9     50.6    485
Crossings               3.1     3.4     6.8     60.0    624
Triangle Fan+edge sort  1.1     1.8     6.5     77.6    787
Triangle Fan            1.2     2.1     7.3     85.4    865
Barycentric             2.1     3.8    13.8    160.7   1665
Angle Summation        56.2    70.4   153.6   1403.8  14693

Grid (100x100)          1.5     1.5     1.6      2.1      9.8
Grid (20x20)            1.7     1.7     1.9      5.7     42.2
Bins (100)              1.8     1.9     2.7     15.1    117
Bins (20)               2.1     2.2     3.7     26.3    278