Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches

Subject: Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches
From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-20 08:28:29

Hi Paul,

> I'm sure GMP and mfpr are good.
> 
> But the license issue should be fully resolved before you/we get too far
> down the line?
> 
Right.

IIRC there has never been a precedent of a Boost library practically requiring 
(to be actually useful) an external non-boost library, so this deserves its own 
discussion.

While in the case of GTL, it is thechnically up to the user to pick up "their 
own" multipresicion number types, they actually can't do that without an 
external non-boost library since such number types do not exists in the SCL.

So I think you are right in that, without that discussion, the formnal review of 
GTL will quickly wind up in a silly licensing war.

Paul, can you start a new thread on the topic?

TIA

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