Subject: [ggl] namespaces, models and algorithms
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz)
Date: 2010-12-16 05:58:58
On 16/12/10 10:49, Barend Gehrels wrote:
>> I actually think Hartmut has a point. boost::geometry::traits does not
>> suggest it's an implementation detail, and I'd bet users may want
>> to use
>> them. I'd move all details down in to boost::geometry::detail::,
>> namely boost::geometry::detail::traits,
>> The namespace geometry::traits does look pretty public to me. Isn't it
>> there for the user to specialize things?
> Sure, it is traits is also public indeed.
> Maybe I should have distinguished between:
> - library users using already adapted geometries (only using
> boost::geometry:: and boost::geometry::model:: (and cs::) )
> - library users adapting their own geometries (also using
Make sense to me. I've actually been considering the traits
as mixed private and public stuff, wasn't clear to me.
Now it is.
>> I think traits should not go into details, unless I wasn't suppose to
>> specialize these traits, and should have achieved my goal some other
> I do strongly agree that traits should not go into details.
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org Member of ACCU, http://accu.org
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net