Re: [boost] [PQS] future of pqs

From: Janek Kozicki (janek_listy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-06-17 19:23:19

Andy Little said:     (by the date of Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:25:50 +0100)

> I thought I should say where I am planning to go with PQS library, especially to
> Janek , as he has experimented with using the library in his own work.
> 
> First a lot depends on the outcome of the review. If accepted into boost, I can
> put the library into Boosts CVS. If not I will have to look around and put it
> elsewhere, possibly on sourceforge. I'm basing that on the high level of
> interest in the subject of quantities brought up by the PQS review.

very good idea, possibly other people will be interested to be able to
commit their own changes in the library. If it is decided to decuple the
library into several parts I can assume that a bigger number of people
will want to contribute (as it will be easier to not mess with the
separated work of other people).

Like Oleg Abrosimov and Noel Belcourt could possibly contribute to
Dimensions part, Leland Brown, John Phillips to Units part, and Geoffrey
Irving, Leland Brown and me (Janek Kozicki) to Linear Algebra part.
Perhaps I have missed others I'm sorry! This discussion is getting HUGE!

> Either way I am planning a major upheaval of the code (including  possibly a
> change of the library name etc), which will break the current interface. Its
> also clear that I need to redo the documentation, which is a time consuming
> process.

I hope that the wiki will grow into a very useful specification, that
can be then turned into a very useful documentation. The task ahead of
us is not easy, nor small, but I really hope that with so much interest
on the boost mailing list we can do this. Although of course it will
take time, because we all have other work to do.

> Regarding the geometry end, it seems to me that the geometry doesnt
> need to be tied to the particular pqs type. Using Boost.Typeof it should be
> possible to implement geometric entities that will work with the types in pqs or
> others if written in terms of Concepts.

I want to reiterate that "Geometry" is a too general name. A better name
is linear algebra - as it is exactly vectors and matrices. I'm not sure
if quaternions fit this name, though. So maybe there is a better name.

But certainly it is not "Geometry". If we start talking about geometry
the problem will grow too big, and we will never finish it.

Geometrical entities can be added later.

-- 
Janek Kozicki                                                         |