Re: [boost] GGL Review

Subject: Re: [boost] GGL Review
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 10:51:42

> and has already suggested a battery of tests. I think this would be an 
> excellent place to start.

Hi Brandon, some questions on this:

- did you look here: 
http://geometrylibrary.geodan.nl/formal_review/sets.html Probably yes 
but I want to be sure that you read it

- did you look in the tests? I don't think we need a "place to start" 
because we already have many tests on this, in the distribution, and 
more. I mean by this that we're started, on the way. But thanks for 
pointing this out.

- clearly we didn't cover *all* cases, because of the bug in the (new) 
assemble process, but we know that a lot of tests are necessary and 
therefore we have a battery of them

- personally I don't think that batteries of random data will cover *all 
*cases. I understand that exceptions or endless loops might become 
clear. But with random it is difficult to verify the results. We can ask 
Luke of course, how he verifies them, and I've no problem to add them then.

- it is still not clear to me if you refer to "algorithmic robustness" 
(handling all cases) or "100% numeric stability" (still being correct in 
the ranges where float or double cannot be expressed anymore), see also 
our last post about this

Regards, Barend