From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-06 09:18:22
Andy Little wrote:
> "Lubomir Bourdev" <lbourdev_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> Another problem is that a library cannot consist of just concepts. You
>> need to have concrete models. GIL provides only the models it needs in
>> practice - a 2D image comprised of pixels in a specific color space. So
>> another reason we can't have a "Display Matrix" library is that we don't
>> have existing models that go with it.
> Yes I think this is the heart of the problem! The library claims to be generic
> but is in fact tightly coupled to one domain.
IMO 'generic' doesn't have to translate to 'domain-agnostic'. Generic here
means that the individual models used are orthogonal, so it is easy to
combine different representations of these models into working code.
There is the 'Image' container, and there are various 'Pixel' types images
are composed of. Generic means that both models are presented as concepts
(and in fact I'm totally delighted to find the documentation use Concepts
to present them !), making it easy to provide alternative Image and Pixel
I'm working on a library for high-performance signal and image processing
(http://www.codesourcery.com/vsiplplusplus) and I'm looking forward to
trying out GIL's Pixel types with my own Matrix types. That's what 'generic'
is all about !
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk