Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] GGL review starts today, November 5th
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-13 19:37:31
Barend Gehrels wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>> The bottom line is that when the OGC conventions already force me to
>> accept confusing names, it would at least be nice to know how I can
>> verify that these are indeed OGC names. What are the reference
>> documents I have to read to learn this?
> There is a new table here: http://trac.osgeo.org/ggl/wiki/OGC
> which summarizes which is OGC and which is not, and clarify names and
> possible name changes.
In the section "OGC functions, not planned", it lists functions like
X, Y, Z, and M but actually it might be valid to consider those
accessors get<D> and set<D> as equivalents (for D in range [0, 3])
In other words, I would consider that GGL does provide some sort of
equivalent of these four OGC functions.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk