Subject: [ggl] namespace renaming
From: Stephen Leary (sleary)
Date: 2009-12-01 06:05:05
Yes I would very much like to keep the OGC functions in one place. The rest
I am happy to live with.
Minor comment... an axis aligned bounding box is also known as an optimized
solid (but probably more cryptic)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Barend Gehrels <Barend.Gehrels_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> All library users have to modify sources then, by renaming the used
> namespace (or using an alias), or renaming macro's.
> I'd add that this is one time operation and for good.
> No more renaming in foreseen future, in case anyone would have doubts.
> For the top level namespace, right. But we are not yet there. There was a
> suggestion during review to add namespaces per domain, and therefore to move
> all OGC functions into a separate namespace, on which everyone seemed to
> boost::geometry::ogc::envelope would be the same as
> boost::geometry::cg::bounding_box and
> (these samples are artificial).
> So some extra namespaces and code modifications are unavoidable.
> It will not be trivial to get a scheme which is satisfactory for everyone.
> For OGC it is less complicated, because that is a standard. So we will get:
> For intersection_inserter it is questionable, because the ogc name is
> "intersection" (and that one is planned as well).
> For non-OGC (but normally found together) functions as simplify, where will
> they go?
> For a function as "distance", which is probably called "distance"
> everywhere, omit namespace? boost::geometry::distance Or get an alias for
> all domains (probably yes)
> I don't have the solution yet, any ideas are welcome. We could start
> creating a list with namespaces covered, and the list on
> ggl mailing list
-- Stephen Leary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/ggl/attachments/20091201/c5bf2f0f/attachment.html
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net