Subject: Re: [boost] GGL Review
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-21 21:29:38
> 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 strongly to Fernando that Boost.Polygon should be withdrawn to avoid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
Please state clearly in what ways the scope of Boost.Polygon doesn't match Boost goals.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk