Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale
From: Jonathan Franklin (franklin.jonathan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-19 13:16:40

Next message: Andrey Semashev: "Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?"
Previous message: Jon Spencer: "[boost] [unordered] 1.41.0 unordered_map doesn't allow declaration with incomplete type."
In reply to: Simonson, Lucanus J: "Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale"
Next in thread: Barend Gehrels: "Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale"

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Simonson, Lucanus J
<lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> We're prepared to add 45 and 90 manhattan geometries.

I'm very much interested in having support for 90 manhattan geometries.

Of course, 1-norm in n-space is what I really want, but we'll start
within the current constraints.
:-)

Jon

Next message: Andrey Semashev: "Re: [boost] Shouldn't both logging proposals be reviewed in the same formal review?"
Previous message: Jon Spencer: "[boost] [unordered] 1.41.0 unordered_map doesn't allow declaration with incomplete type."
In reply to: Simonson, Lucanus J: "Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale"
Next in thread: Barend Gehrels: "Re: [boost] Updating the Boost Review Process Was: [GGL] Bost.Polygon (GTL) vs GGL - rationale"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk