Subject: Re: [boost] Another GGL review
From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 13:59:08
Jonathan Franklin wrote:
> For the purposes of my own review, I'm trying to decide whether I
> think the library should be accepted without a spatial index. Would
> anyone like to sway my opinion one way or the other?
I have a slightly unconventional spatial index that I would like one
day to submit to Boost; I was hoping that we would have a Boost
geometry framework that I could port it to, and as you may have noticed
I'm unhappy that we instead have two incompatible ones...
My index is actually an adaptor that uses Z-curves to make a 1D
container (e.g. std::map, or for read-only access a memory-mapped file)
efficiently accessible as a 2D (or potentially higher dimension)
container. A restriction of the Z-curve method is that it does not
work with floating-point coordinates...
I suggest that the absence of a spatial index should not be a reason
for rejecting GGL. It might be that adding some concepts to support
this could be appropriate; for example, Barend, what requirements does
the spatial index extension to your union/intersection algorithm have?
Are they expressed as concepts?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk