Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] GGL Review
From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-21 13:51:01

 Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Michael Fawcett
<michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Regardless, the point I was trying to make was that (to me) the
> interface is more important than the implementation at this stage in
> the library's life, and that I don't think it's fair to base
> acceptance solely on whether the implementation is 100% robust and
> numerically stable unless the documentation states says otherwise.

Hi Michael,

This is a very important point in which many agree completely. This is
an issue related to updating the Boost review process.

The summary to me is that a proposed libary should not merit a Boost
review if its scope doesn't match Boost goals (clearly stated at the
beginning of the home page). It's for this reason that I argued
strongly to Fernando that Boost.Polygon should be withdrawn to avoid
setting a precedent (despite of other technical merits the library


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at