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

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal/InterestCheck: Boost.Geom
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-26 13:09:32

on Mon Jan 26 2009, Barend Gehrels <barend-AT-geodan.nl> wrote:

> Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>> 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). 
>>
>> There are geometric frameworks in the work from several people.
>> Those work with concepts.
>>
>> Among other things, you can manipulate different types with the same interface,
>> using retroactive modelling.
> Right, this is the fourth one within a year. We will send our new preview this month
> or start of February. It is fairly complete now and revised by input from the list
> again.
>
>
> Question, related to this. Until now we didn't use the name "boost" on it or use
> namespace "boost" inside, just because it is not accepted or reviewed. We only state
> "proposed to boost" on the website.

Thank you very much for being so responsible.

> I've seen several libraries, and this one as well, immediately using
> the tag :boost" at first gauging of interest. What is the policy
> there? Are we encouraged to do this as well or is it better to wait if
> / until it is accepted?

If you want, you can use "Boost" as long as you add a loud disclaimer
stating that it's not an accepted library.  However, I'm neither
encouraging nor discouraging that practice.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com