Re: [boost] [GTL] redesign checked into sandbox

From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-10 08:57:36

Hi Luke,

I have followed the GTL thread, and I think that you want to preserv as much 
as possible your initial scope, isn't it?

A lot of people are waiting much more of a Geometry Template Library than 
you are ready to provide, so why not state clearly the intent/scope of the 
library and give it a name more adequated, something like Isotropic 2D 
Geometry Template Library, or I2DGTL if you prefer, or whatever defines more 
precisely your library intent?
No body can discuss the intent of your library, but one stated clearly maybe 
there will be less interested people.
I think that this will limit eternal discusions than do not get too much 
results.

What do you think?

Best regards

Vicente
_____________________
Vicente Juan Botet Escriba
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Femiani" <JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] [GTL] redesign checked into sandbox

>
>> >yet. There are very valid reasons that the size of a coordinate set
>> >should be specified at compile time for cases other than 2 or 3.
>>
>> You would not be using my library with these types, ...
>
> Well then maybe I should back out of this discussion, I am interested in
> a generic geometry library that will provide me with a framework to
> write algorithms that work with any (or many) external opensource,
> commercial, or legacy geometry libraries.
>
> If that is not an aim of GTL then I appologize for the noise :-)
>
> -- John
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>