Subject: Re: [boost] GGL Review
From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-16 11:23:24
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Brandon Kohn <blkohn_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> One of the more useful
> features of the library (GGL) would of course be the boolean operations. The
> problem however is clearly going to be robustness.
> I have never encountered
> a robust floating point boolean operation library in my 9 years of working
> in the geometry domain. While this may not mean it's impossible, I think it
> does mean it's unlikely.
I believe that this is because for many use-cases, it isn't worth the
run-time performance and development-time trade-off.
> I think we've
> all come to expect that when we adopt a Boost library into our work, it
> should be correct. I would suggest the requirement that the library authors
> demonstrate that their algorithm is both correct and robust. We as a
> community should help define how this is done.
In my application domain, I'm really not that interested in numerical
instability due to floating point imprecision. For my use-cases, a
few things work fine w/ single precision, and double precision works
well for everything else. If you can give me 100% numerical stability
without making my code slow, your code clunky to use, or delay
release, then great!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk