Re: [Boost-users] [Review] GGL review starts today, November 5th

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] GGL review starts today, November 5th
From: Michael Fawcett (michael.fawcett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-21 13:18:14

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Jose <jmalv04_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Michael Fawcett
> <michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I'm unsure of the focus of GGL. Â Given the current offering, I don't
>> think GGL is an appropriate name. Â I don't think Boost.Polygon is
>> appropriate either. Â IMVHO Boost.Polygon should be Boost.VLSI and Luke
>> can drop floating point support if he believes it offers no benefits
>> to that domain (I'm sure he would love less work  :) ).
>
> The paragraph above is way too random!
>
> Each of us can not come up with one idea of what a library should be,
> and Boost already clarifies what the high level requirements should
> be. From the home page:
>
> "Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a
> broad spectrum of applications."

I can't understand how that applies to what I said, sorry.  I didn't
come up with the idea of what the library should be, the library
authors did.  I believe it's up to the reviewers to determine if the
implementation matches the author's intended scope (among many other
things).

If I had a library that only implemented quad-trees and then proposed
it as Boost.Generic Spatial Index, I would think the reviewers would
have something to say about that.

The Boost.Polygon comments were meant tongue-in-cheeck, note the
smiley and "IMVHO".

--Michael Fawcett