> So, did you read the article through to the end, because the solution is pretty elegant?
Yes, I read the entire thing (on my phone, even) before starting a reply... Why did you want to know?
> Incidentally, the way plants get distributed is somewhat different from the way they distribute parts of themselves
Certainly, but the OPs goal of "no repeated gaps along a line" only maps to one of those cases... AFAIK plants have no particular incentive to avoid the occasional line-segment as they compete for placement.
It seems like you were proposing a similar (i.e. Perturbed non-random) solution to what was eventually arrived at except that his solution directly derives from the goal.
Yes, I read the entire thing (on my phone, even) before starting a reply... Why did you want to know?
> Incidentally, the way plants get distributed is somewhat different from the way they distribute parts of themselves
Certainly, but the OPs goal of "no repeated gaps along a line" only maps to one of those cases... AFAIK plants have no particular incentive to avoid the occasional line-segment as they compete for placement.