That's probably impossible (as rounded rects are not continuous) but also completely unnecessary as you can handle the quarter circle segments and line segments separately.
> as you can handle the quarter circle segments and line segments separately.
Possibly, but that is tricky in the presence of blitting modes such as XOR; the movement you accidentally draw a pixel twice, it would get flipped twice (nowadays, with anti-aliasing, it gets really tricky, but they didn’t have that problem yet)
You may want to draw the four circle segments in one go, too, as that allows you to share large parts of the computations for what pixels to touch.
The algorithm used to draw the ellipse should not have any issues with accidentally overdrawing even by a single pixel if your arcs are defined in 90-degree increments.
And you can, in fact, draw the four circle segments in one go, since they will all be mirror images of each other. If, instead of the absolute coordinate of the pixel, you compute the offset from the starting point, then you can compute it once, negate it as needed, and draw 4 pixels on each step.
Is it actually true that "no-one had ever done this before?". As far as I know, the midpoint circle algorithm, being a straightforward extension of Bresenham's line algorithm, was already well-known by 1981. Indeed, here's a paper from 1967 that does basically the same thing: https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-pdf/10/3/282/1333509...
This was my interpretation as well. Internally I would be thinking "Look, I've just worked my ass off and produced something incredible. Can't we just put it straight into production?"
Also, for the most common cases this probably wasn't even needed - I bet they just stored the "masks" for rounding the corners hardcoded, as that would have been much faster.
Why would Bill say this? Why would his ellipse optimization not be trivially applicable to a quarter-circle?