Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] GGL review starts today, November 5th
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-20 11:14:52
Thank you very much for all the time you spent on the review of our
library. Your review is really impressing, objective, and thorough. And
of course we are glad with the, also well-considered, outcome.
We will take all the points you raised into account.
> The documentation is not sufficient. However, this is not a statement about the quantity, but about the organization, and about what is documented. Many individual algorithms and functions actually have a quite nice documentation. However, the overall picture is missing, and the reference to OGC specifications or examples is no substitute for a proper documentation.
We agree with this. If GGL is accepted, we will (probably) go to
QuickBooks, as suggested on this list. All documentation will then be
revisited and extended, with help of all the comments made by you and
the other reviewers last weeks. We can then leave the imposed structure
of Doxygen which was sometimes useful and sometimes not convenient.
> I actually collected many typos during my review, and corrected some in the corresponding source files, but I will have to send this in a separate mail. (And I probably should also elaborate more on the points were the documentation could/should be improved.)
They are welcome!
> I heard that GGL has its own mailing lists. When GGL gets accepted as boost library, this mailing list should at least be referenced in the "http://www.boost.org/community/groups.html" section of the boost web page. It might also be nice if in this case, that list would be open to discussions regarding the development of geometry related boost libraries and questions about them in general.
Certainly, the GGL mailing list is open to the public, and open for
discussions on GGL and geometry.
Thanks again, Barend
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk