Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale

Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 05:37:20

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Fernando Cacciola
<fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
>> CGAL, which is focused on computational geometry, and Fernando knows
>> well, ends his philosophy page with this text that is interesting.
>
> Just for the record, I don't just know CGAL well. I am one of its active
> developers and even contributed to the internal discussions that lead to
> this piece of text you just quoted (for no clear reason though)
>
> I also invested quite some time working with BOTH GTL and GGL authors on the
> technical details of the robustness issues on their respective libraries, so
> I know in quite detail how the libraries handle this, FWIW (though as I say
> I am not sure what you point is here)

My point here is that is obvious what CGAL is good at and it's strenghts.

What do "the Boost generic geometry efforts" want to be when they grow up ?