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: 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"
>> if 
>> 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
>> to 
>> 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.

Regards,

Brandon