Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches

Subject: Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches
From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-19 21:54:34

Hi Paul,

> I've been following this erudite discussion with interest and a modest
> degree of understanding.
> 
> But one thing seems clear to me - that any quality implementation is going
> to require at the very least 'big' ints and 'big' floats, and probably exact
> int and exact floats.
> 
Yes, at the very least.

> It would seem that we need tried and tested Boost license implementations -
> preferably before starting work on a complex geometry problem. No solution
> can be considered for Boost if it uses any restrictive-licensed components.
 >
I thought about this as well.

I think we could really appreciate if Boost could finally get a big int/float 
number type. There even is partial work lurking on the vault for so long I lost 
count.

OTOH, I don't think that a library CAN'T push that into user space, even if in 
practice it *requires* users to use a non-boost licensed implementation, 
provided it is LPGLed or some other reasonably free enough.

At the very least, I think gmp, which is LPGL and "needed" by GTL (for all 
practical purposes), deserves a special consideration. It is a de-facto standard 
to such an extent that I even question if it is really worth the effort of 
preproducing that. The same goes for mpfr in the floating point arena.

Best

--
Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft Consulting, Founder
http://www.scisoft-consulting.com