From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-24 15:39:47
"Jason Hise" wrote
> Andy Little wrote:
>>Meanwhile your library sounds very interesting so I hope to get a chance to
>>look at it now!
> Enjoy :)
I've had a quick look. It looks like a very classical matrix library. There are
This causes the program to crash when run, so I presume some compile time
asserts would be mandatorry.
Overall though it looks very clean. In fact its almost the exact opposite of my
own geometry library in the vault.
This brings me to a problem I have been wrestling with:
As author of pqs physical quantities library I am pretty much required to
implement a geometry library so that it can use physical quantities as
value_types, but I dont feel it reasonable that I should impose that on
everybody. The fact that my library allows use of physical quantities as
value_types has repurcussions in terms of the interface (no operator) and the
implementation (Look at the comparative zip file sizes).
I think maybe the best option would be to withdraw my own library as a candidate
for The Boost.Geometry library and rather create a pqs geometry library as part
of the (tentative Boost) pqs distro.
That would, I believe, help to move a Boost.Geometry library forward.
Of course anyone that strongly disagrees.. please say so ...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk