Re: [boost] Proposal/InterestCheck: Boost.Geom

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal/InterestCheck: Boost.Geom
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-26 12:16:49

Anis Benyelloul wrote:
> Boost.Geom purpose is to provide a unified, zero-cost and pretty interface
> around existing geometric primitive implementations (for now only points and
> rectangles in 2D and 3D). 

Hi Anis,

Some quick thoughts:

- Thank you for writing some documentation.  I found the link 
unreliable at first but I was able to see the docs eventually.  If 
anyone else failed to connect to the server I suggest trying again.

- Perhaps you would like to compare and contrast your library vs. all 
the other proposals.

- As far as I can see, you're supporting homogeneous co-ordinate types 
(i.e. I can't use a different type for altitude than for 
latitude/longitude), and you don't provide a way to iterate over all 
the co-ordinates of a point.  I'm not saying this is a good or a bad 
thing, but it is one of the ways in which the libraries differ.

- As I've said before, a variety of conflicting approaches are possible 
at this "bottom level" of a geometry library.  I don't think any one 
approach is going to make all potential users happy.  In order to gain 
momentum, a library will need to demonstrate that is has worthwhile 
features at higher levels (algorithms, containers, bindings etc.)  If 
someone were to propose a library full of those higher-level features 
then it would become popular irrespective of its choice of point 
concepts.  Until then we'll all propose lots of slightly-different 
"bottom levels" and disagree about which is best.

- "Rationale" is spelt with an 'e' when it's a noun in this sense :-)

Regards,  Phil.

P.S. Geometry challenge of the week: a container for lots of very short 
poly-lines that has less storage overhead than a (sorted) 
std::vector<std::vector<point>> and provides faster region lookup.