Re: [boost] [geometry] robustness approaches

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?
>>
> 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.
As has been pointed out to me during an XML discussion, there's
Boost.MPI and Boost.Python.

Sebastian