Subject: Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches
From: Sebastian Redl (sebastian.redl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-20 08:53:30
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> 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?
> 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.
As has been pointed out to me during an XML discussion, there's
Boost.MPI and Boost.Python.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk