Geometry Boost List: [ggl] [quickbook] Algorithms quickbook sample

Subject: [ggl] [quickbook] Algorithms quickbook sample
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz)
Date: 2010-02-16 19:19:42

Barend Gehrels wrote:
> Hi Mateusz,
>
> Herewith some feedback on the compilation.
> http://mateusz.loskot.net/tmp/ggl/qbk/geometry/misc/compilation.html
>
> Great it is there and it is looking very good, again.
>
> Some remarks:
> - depdendencies typos

Fixed.

> - " properly by following instructions..." actually the only thing
> necessary is to set the include folder, which is indeed written there,
> so we can lower this a bit probably

I've tried to update, see if it's OK now.

> - compilers, there are more now. It is also compiling on CodeWarrior (at
> least the intersections). What is our strategy here? It probably must
> run all unit tests. OK, then we cannot mention that one. I tested MSVC
> 2010 express beta, but didn't do all unit tests either...

Hmm, good question. What about maintaining two categories/lists:
1. Compilers confirmed as building full set of tests and examples
2. Compilers users mentioned but without providing further details
what extent of BG was built with it

> - Boost Geometry uses Boost Build, I would mention here that this is for
> unit tests. For users, it is really not necessary to use Boost Build

I believe it says so:

Boost Geometry uses Boost Build, ..., to configure, build and execute
unit tests and example programs.

> - Extensions: indeed, let's move that to another node, I like the pages
> to be a bit concise.

May be even move Extensions after Misc, so the top nodes would be draw:

Introduction
Tutorial
Overview
Reference
Miscellaneous
Extensions
References

> - However, I would include the "Intellisense issues" from the original
> page, because that bug really can be a irritating, reviewers mentioned
> this and probably were glad by this hint

I believe it is included:

http://mateusz.loskot.net/tmp/ggl/qbk/geometry/misc/compilation/issues.html

Yes, I agree this bug is irritating. I've been suffering from it myself.

> - The advanced includes might maybe have better overview in a table? I
> know it was not like that in the original, but it just occurred to me
> now that it might look better.

Sure, good idea.

So, you mean table with one header per row and two columns? This way?

[ header    | description ]
[ .../*.hpp | ...         ]

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net