Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches

Subject: Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-13 17:53:45

Hi Fernando,

> It deeply worries me to find that the GGL proposal haven't been 
> updated in this regard, because the instrumentation of the proper 
> techniques have a significant impact on the overall design.
> Robustness can't be treated as an implementation detail to be deal 
> with later on (and I'm sorry if I haven't made this point clear when I 
> warn about it before).
I know you warned before and if I'm right you offered to help us with 
that. I was not forgotten that, although it is more than a year ago.

In my opinion we've left this issue open, there were many issues to 
handle, because of requests of the list. Concepts, taking any geometry, 
coordinate systems, dimensions, ranges, we've handled many. But not all, 
in that sense you are right. I'm still optimistic that we can handle 
also this issue, even now. You are right, it has been unchanged indeed 
(as a I mentioned).

> If I where to review the library today I would have to strongly vote 
> for rejection because of this.
That phase is not yet there... It is in preview until we publish it for 
review.
> The library proposed by Lucannus, OTOH, at least acknowledges the 
> problem appropriately and approaches a solution in the right direction 
> (there is still some important design-influencing considerations but 
> are not showstopers)
You'll probably found this on the mails and not on the library itself. 
It has no circles so it is a bit unfair to compare the approaches like 
this. It focusses on integer arithmetic and 45/90 angled polygons so it 
is different, more or less complimentary.

Regards, Barend