Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Brandon Kohn (blkohn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 11:25:40
> Phil Endecott wrote:
>> Personally I'm totally unmotivated to contribute to "Boost.Geometry"
>> I have to either do everything twice or gamble on which one is going
>> to "win" in the end.
>> I would really like to see some discussion of this before this review
>> ends, though sadly I will be going away tomorrow and may not be able
>> take part in much of the remaining discussion.
After using the library in my testing for the review, I have to admit
that I would have reservations about this as well. I really want to
contribute to the geometry efforts as I believe I have something to
offer, but my efforts so far with GGL have been fairly frustrating.
Rather I find that parts of the interface just feel clunky to use and
that the names of things are not so natural. As an example, when I
tested the segment intersection algorithm, I found that the bundled
segment type holds its points by reference. So I couldn't have a vector
of those points without modifying or rolling my own segment type. The
call to check for intersections is named 'relate'. Though it really only
calculates the intersection points. The name would seem to suggest it
performs a more thorough topological characterization. Perhaps these
come down to preference, but the feelings are there.
> Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
> My concern is that many reviewers are having trouble distinguishing between what is actually submitted and what is a planned feature. I get confused myself.
I have this problem as well. My impression of the work is that it's
unrefined at this point, and that answers to emerging problems are being
concocted on the fly. That is not to say that I don't appreciate all the
work and difficulties involved. I know as I do this kind of work
routinely. The fact that the review library still has the use of double
with c-style casting and 1e-10 tolerance checks tells me that the
library isn't well tested under things like GMP. The conclusion from
that is that there are claims being made about how it should work
theoretically as though they are already fact.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk