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: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 11:39:20

> 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.
- It is working in practice, as I justed described on that new web-page 
and in the post yesterday.
- The page is new but the approach was already there before review. See 
the x02_numeric_adaptor_example.cpp  on the doc page.
- The approach was already there, long before review (see postings on 
this list dating from 30/03)
- The GMP/CLN approach was implemented in various algorithms, and it is 
tested there
- It was not implemented in *all *algoritms, as I mailed on this list 
before, including the reason for that
- the only thing I did yesterday was that I added it to intersection and 
union as well. This is not submitted to not confuse the review process, 
however, it is available for people who want it
- that 1e-10 tolerance occurs only once in the whole code, at a place 
setting a boolean flag is often set anyway. That is noted there
- furthermore we compare : integer with ==, FP with epsilon  (like in 
Boost.Test) and GMP or CLN with == . See ggl/util/math.hpp
- there is nothing concocted on the fly of this review, besides maybe 
things really not implemented (as our answer to Pierre about infinity), 
but they are not presented as being there or already planned

Barend