Subject: Re: [boost] Preview 3 of the Geometry Library
From: Bruno Lalande (bruno.lalande_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-10-15 23:50:00
> Back to the issue of default vs. non-default constructible polygons, I
> believe that while the boost geometry library may choose to define a
> polygon data type that may not be default constructible, it cannot make
> that choice for legacy polygon types. We have to assume that the
> library's generic interfaces will work with polygons that are default
> constructible and that the library's algorithms need to be implemented
> in a way that is robust to all kinds of things that might normally be
> considered an invariant of a well designed polygon class.
Indeed, my preference towards non-default constructors is available
for a class but becomes much less ideal when it comes to generalize it
to a concept. In that precise context, runtime checks inside the
algorithms are probably preferable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk