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;
}

Like David Segonds' answer suggests I use an approach of angle summation derived from my concave polygon drawing algorithm. It relies of adding up the approximate angles of subtriangles around the point to obtain a weight. A weight around 1.0 means the point is inside the triangle, a weight around 0.0 means outside, a weight around -1.0 is what happens when inside the polygon but in reverse order (like with one of the halves of a bowtie-shaped tetragon) and a weight of NAN if exactly on an edge. The reason it's not slow is that angles don't need to be estimated accurately at all. Holes can be handled by treating them as separate polygons and subtracting the weights.

typedef struct { double x, y; } xy_t;

xy_t sub_xy(xy_t a, xy_t b)
{
    a.x -= b.x;
    a.y -= b.y;
    return a;
}

double calc_sharp_subtriangle_pixel_weight(xy_t p0, xy_t p1)
{
    xy_t rot, r0, r1;
    double weight;

    // Rotate points (unnormalised)
    rot = sub_xy(p1, p0);
    r0.x = rot.x*p0.y - rot.y*p0.x;
    r0.y = rot.x*p0.x + rot.y*p0.y;
    r1.y = rot.x*p1.x + rot.y*p1.y;

    // Calc weight
    weight = subtriangle_angle_approx(r1.y, r0.x) - subtriangle_angle_approx(r0.y, r0.x);

    return weight;
}

double calc_sharp_polygon_pixel_weight(xy_t p, xy_t *corner, int corner_count)
{
    int i;
    xy_t p0, p1;
    double weight = 0.;

    p0 = sub_xy(corner[corner_count-1], p);
    for (i=0; i < corner_count; i++)
    {
        // Transform corner coordinates
        p1 = sub_xy(corner[i], p);

        // Calculate weight for each subtriangle
        weight += calc_sharp_subtriangle_pixel_weight(p0, p1);
        p0 = p1;
    }

    return weight;
}

因此，对于多边形的每一段，都形成一个子三角形，并计算点，然后旋转每个子三角形以计算其近似角度并添加到权重。

调用subtriangle_angle_approx(y, x)可以替换为atan2(y, x) / (2.*pi)，但是一个非常粗略的近似值就足够精确了:

double subtriangle_angle_approx(double y, double x)
{
    double angle, d;
    int obtuse;

    if (x == 0.)
        return NAN;

    obtuse = fabs(y) > fabs(x);
    if (obtuse)
        swap_double(&y, &x);

    // Core of the approximation, a very loosely approximate atan(y/x) / (2.*pi) over ]-1 , 1[
    d = y / x;
    angle = 0.13185 * d;

    if (obtuse)
        angle = sign(d)*0.25 - angle;

    return angle;
}

简单的解决方案是将多边形划分为三角形，并按这里解释的那样对三角形进行测试

如果你的多边形是凸多边形，可能有更好的方法。把这个多边形看作是无限条线的集合。每一行将空间一分为二。对于每一个点，很容易判断它是在直线的一边还是另一边。如果一个点在所有直线的同一侧，那么它在多边形内。

当使用qt (qt 4.3+)时，可以使用QPolygon的函数containsPoint

当我还是Michael Stonebraker手下的一名研究员时，我做了一些关于这方面的工作——你知道，就是那位提出了Ingres、PostgreSQL等的教授。

我们意识到最快的方法是首先做一个边界框，因为它非常快。如果它在边界框之外，它就在外面。否则，你就得做更辛苦的工作……

如果你想要一个伟大的算法，看看开源项目PostgreSQL的源代码的地理工作…

我想指出的是，我们从来没有深入了解过左撇子和右撇子(也可以表达为“内”和“外”的问题……

更新

BKB's link provided a good number of reasonable algorithms. I was working on Earth Science problems and therefore needed a solution that works in latitude/longitude, and it has the peculiar problem of handedness - is the area inside the smaller area or the bigger area? The answer is that the "direction" of the verticies matters - it's either left-handed or right handed and in this way you can indicate either area as "inside" any given polygon. As such, my work used solution three enumerated on that page.

此外，我的工作使用单独的函数进行“在线”测试。

.．.因为有人问:我们发现当垂直的数量超过某个数字时，边界盒测试是最好的——如果有必要，在做更长的测试之前做一个非常快速的测试……边界框是通过简单地将最大的x，最小的x，最大的y和最小的y放在一起，组成一个框的四个点来创建的……

另一个提示是:我们在网格空间中进行了所有更复杂的“调光”计算，都是在平面上的正点上进行的，然后重新投影到“真实”的经度/纬度上，从而避免了在经度180线交叉时和处理极地时可能出现的环绕错误。工作好了!

在大多数情况下，这是一个比其他算法都快的算法。

它又新又雅致。我们花费O(n * log(n))时间构建一个表，允许我们在O(log(n) + k)时间内测试多边形中的点。

与光线跟踪或角度不同，使用扫描光束表可以更快地对同一多边形进行多次检查。我们必须预先构建一个扫描束活动边表，这是大多数代码正在做的事情。

We calculate the scanbeam and the active edges for that position in the y-direction. We make a list of points sorted by their y-component and we iterate through this list, for two events. Start-Y and End-Y, we track the active edges as we process the list. We process the events in order and for each scanbeam we record the y-value of the event and the active edges at each event (events being start-y and end-y) but we only record these when our event-y is different than last time (so everything at the event point is processed before we mark it in our table).

我们得到我们的表格:

[] p6p5、p6p7 p6p5, p6p7, p2p3, p2p1 p6p7, p5p4, p2p3, p3p1 p7p8, p5p4, p2p3, p2p1 p7p8, p5p4, p3p4, p2p1 p7p8 p2p1、 p7p8、p1p0 p8p0、p1p0 []

在构建该表之后，实际执行工作的代码只有几行。

注意:这里的代码使用复数值作为点。所以。real是。x。imag是。y。

def point_in_scantable(actives_table, events, xi, point):
    beam = bisect(events, point.imag) - 1  # Binary search in sorted array.
    actives_at_y = actives_table[beam]
    total = sum([point.real > xi(e, point.imag) for e in actives_at_y])
    return bool(total % 2)

我们对事件进行二进制搜索，以找到特定值的actives_at_y。对于在y点的所有活动，我们计算在我们点的特定y点的x段值。每次x截距大于点的x分量时加1。然后对总数乘以2。(这是偶数-奇数填充规则，你可以很容易地适应任何其他填充规则)。

完整的代码:

from bisect import bisect

def build_edge_list(polygon):
    edge_list = []
    for i in range(1, len(polygon)):
        if (polygon[i].imag, polygon[i].real) < (polygon[i - 1].imag, polygon[i - 1].real):
            edge_list.append((polygon[i], i))
            edge_list.append((polygon[i - 1], ~i))
        else:
            edge_list.append((polygon[i], ~i))
            edge_list.append((polygon[i - 1], i))

    def sort_key(e):
        return e[0].imag, e[0].real, ~e[1]

    edge_list.sort(key=sort_key)
    return edge_list


def build_scanbeam(edge_list):
    actives_table = []
    events = []
    y = -float("inf")
    actives = []
    for pt, index in edge_list:
        if y != pt.imag:
            actives_table.append(list(actives))
            events.append(y)
        if index >= 0:
            actives.append(index)
        else:
            actives.remove(~index)
        y = pt.imag
    return actives_table, events

def point_in_polygon(polygon, point):
    def x_intercept(e, y):
        pt0 = polygon[e-1]
        pt1 = polygon[e]
        if pt1.real - pt0.real == 0:
            return pt0.real
        m = (pt1.imag - pt0.imag) / (pt1.real - pt0.real)
        b = pt0.imag - (m * pt0.real)
        return (y - b) / m

    edge_list = build_edge_list(polygon)
    actives_table, events = build_scanbeam(edge_list)
    try:
        if len(point):
            return [point_in_scantable(actives_table, events, x_intercept, p) for p in point]
    except TypeError:
        return point_in_scantable(actives_table, events, x_intercept, point)

def point_in_scantable(actives_table, events, xi, point):
    beam = bisect(events, point.imag) - 1  # Binary search in sorted array.
    actives_at_y = actives_table[beam]
    total = sum([point.real > xi(e, point.imag) for e in actives_at_y])
    return bool(total % 2)

如果忽略，则扫描表的构建时间为O(n*log(n))。我们实际上是在O(log(n) + k)时间内查到的。其中n是多边形中段数的大小，k是该多边形中典型的活动边数。其他的光线追踪方法实际上需要O(n)时间。每次我们检查一个点，它迭代整个多边形。所以即使有这个明显的次优实现，它也轻而易举地打败了其他所有的。

There's a few performance tricks that could be done, for example, we can lower the time complexity to O(log(n) + log(k)) time. To do this we would implement Bentley-Ottmann into the sweep line, and rather than processing the intersections as different events, we split the lines at the intersections. We then also sort the active edges by their x-intercepts. We then know that no intersections occur during a scanbeam and since we sorted our segments (taking care to order them correctly within the scanbeam even if they start at the same initial point (you need to look at the slopes, or just compare midpoints of the segments). We then have a sorted intersection-less actives lists scanbeam table which means we can binary search into active edge list as well. Though that sounds like a lot of work for a value of k which is going to be typically 2 or maybe 4.

此外，由于这基本上变成了一个查找表和一些x截距的最小计算，它更能用GPU完成。你不再需要在多边形上循环了。所以你可以用numpy这样的东西来大量计算这些点，这样你就可以一次做所有的计算，从而提高性能。