Subject: Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-19 15:15:06
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> Behalf Of Fernando Cacciola
> Sent: 19 March 2009 15:48
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches
I've been following this erudite discussion with interest and a modest
degree of understanding.
But one thing seems clear to me - that any quality implementation is going
to require at the very least 'big' ints and 'big' floats, and probably exact
int and exact floats.
It would seem that we need tried and tested Boost license implementations -
preferably before starting work on a complex geometry problem. No solution
can be considered for Boost if it uses any restrictive-licensed components.
Is this/these something that someone could propose and mentor for a GSoC
(I'm not offering - just asking ;-)
--- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk