Boost logo

Boost :

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

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.


Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft Consulting, Founder

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at