Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-18 19:37:09
> In the review result announcement, Fernando listed many of my minor
> complaints about the library but did not address this suggestion, or the
> existence of GGL "in the wings", at all.
You are correct... as I said in another post I really intended to address all
objections but as GGL review started I had to compromise.
So, FWIW, I totally agreed with Luke's own response to your suggestion: that
there is absolutely no need to reject Boost.Polygon as a mean to make sure GGL
has a chance to be accepted.
The one thing that I could not state on my results is this: I had followed GGL
from the begging, as I did GTL, and I know enough of both to be certain that
both *can* coexist within Boost, even in spite of their high impedance in some
region of the fundamental base level.
I believe they can and should coexist because I don't think any of the libraries
is good enough at the realization of a truly generic common base, yet they offer
somewhat complementary views to it.
I can picture a future where the *experience* of these two proposals being used
by many people with totally separate expectations and requirements will light
some insight into what it takes to have a really common and generic geometric
-- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk