Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal/InterestCheck: Boost.Geom
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-30 12:22:52
> Barend Gehrels <barend <at> geodan.nl> writes:
>> It is probably possible to add such an approach on top of a library
>> like ours.
Anis Benyelloul wrote:
> I was just about to say the same thing about implementing `data-type
> independent'-algorithms on top of my proposal.
> All in all, I think the two approaches are orthogonal and solve two
> different problems (make user's code independent of the underlying
> geometry framework vs making algorithms applicable to any type the
> user is working with)
Not at all. The main difference between the two approaches is you implement your library functions as members of wrapper classes and we implement them as free functions. I made my algorithms independent of the underlying geometry framework. I had several different frameworks to content with and have integrated my library into all of them without taking on any dependencies. Its an integration model that demonstrates that C++ code can be much more modular than is commonly practiced. Just because we are ourselves the first users of our own libraries to write code that is independent of the underlying geometry frameworks doesn't mean that allowing other people to do so is not also our goal or somehow not accomplished by our libraries. If anything a user would benefit from the example of a few algorithms to help them craft the interfaces for their own. If we structure our header files correctly a user will be able to include just the generic interfaces for point and rectangle (and in my case interval, since the rectangle depends on it) and none of the advanced algorithms and use it to write geometric GUI code that is independent of the underlying GUI framework.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk