So while debugging the last bug that was reported on this list, I came across something I really don't like about the getMaxDistance, getHamiltonianDistance, and getHexagonalDistance functions in SparseGrid2D and SparseGrid3D.

SparseGrid is different from other grids in that it has essentially *three* modes:

	- Bounded
	- Unbounded
	- Toroidal

It's the "Unbounded" part that's a problem for me. These three functions take a "toroidal" parameter which lets you do wrap-around collection of locations or objects up to a certain distance away from a central point.  But what if the "toroidal" parameter is turned off?  It turns out that SparseGrid collects neighbor cells and objects as if it were *bounded*.

Bounded makes sense if you want to be consistent with collections made in other grids (ObjectGrid2D for example).  But it makes it _impossible_ to do unbounded collection.

I'm going to make a some new versions of these functions which take a "bounded" parameter and a "toroidal" parameter.  If toroidal=true, then bounded must = true (it'll throw an exception if not).  Otherwise bounded can be true or false.

The question is how to define the older functions that don't have a "bounded" parameter.  Do I:

1. Define them as assuming bounded <- toroidal, that is, if it's not toroidal, it's unbounded.  This is the behavior used in Continuous2D and I think it makes much more sense as a default for a potentially infinite grid.

2. Define them as assuming bounded <- true.  This is the behavior _assumed_ in the documentation of Grid2D.  It would make the results returned by SparseGrid2D always consistent with those of other grids even if it's infinite (the out-of-bounds values would simply be ignored).

The question is: which is least surprise?  My inclination is #1.  People assuming boundedness will be surprised by extra values that show up in their results *if* for some reason they accidentally had placed objects outside the bounds.  BUT if we did #2, then people assuming unboundedness would have results not show up at all, and that'd be bad.

What do you think?