Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] GGL Review
From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-16 13:26:23

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Stefan Strasser
<strasser_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I think the question of this review is not whether some algorithms in GGL have
> limitations, as long as they are documented, but if the concepts and
> algorithm/strategy interface is sufficient to allow the implementation of
> specialized algorithms. is this the case?

The concepts, interfaces, and algorithms provided by a library are
indeed of paramount importance during a review. However, the
implementation is also extremely important. Any serious algorithmic
bugs identified in the implementation should probably be fixed prior
to release (e.g. acceptance is contingent on fixing them).

My argument is that numerical stability issues due to floating point
limitations are not algorithmic bugs, but rather "properties" of the
chosen algorithm(s). </flame_bait>

I greatly like the ability to generically pick the representation of
my choice, w/ the ability to use a more "robust" algorithm when
needed. Any bugs that would prevent the more robust algorithm from
being as robust as it claims should be fixed.

> luke seems to be willing to integrate his Boost.Robust2DIntegerPolygon into
> GGL, but he also seems to have some concerns if he'll be able to do that
> using GGL's polygon representation. those should be addressed before GGL is
> accepted.

I was under the impression that Luc was basing his reservations on
robustness issues due to floating point limitations. Perhaps I
misread, or missed a point or two.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at