Geometry Boost List: [ggl] Re: rtree ?

Subject: [ggl] Re: rtree ?
From: Barend Gehrels (barend)
Date: 2011-11-30 07:26:17

Hi Adam,

On 28-11-2011 5:19, Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
> Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
>> Barend Gehrels wrote:
>>> Ah, was that the problem. You reporterd earlier that point_xy was not
>>> working in index for area, but not that this was the reason. Thanks for this
>>> new report and with this it is fixed now.
>>>
>>> Besides this I also updated/extended the linestring/polygon intersection
>>> (which is working for intersection and difference now, in all cases that I
>>> tested. Will do some more test next week.)
>>>
>> Ok, thanks.
> Btw, I've added some basic version of BoostBook doc with generated html.
>

Great, of course. I did have a quick scan.

My first (and major) question is, why BoostBook? QuickBook is the 
popular and recommended way, and besides that using QuickBook would 
interoperate much better with Boost.Geometry documentation...

I do realize that Boost.Geometry itself is not following the default 
Boost path (if there is one). So I will explain a bit more (summarize, 
there is more on this on this list).

Before review we used Doxygen for our documentation. Many reviews 
criticized that and favoured QuickBook. QuickBook is also great. So we 
wanted to move to Quickbook, but at the same time not loose automatic 
documentation, which Doxygen does very well. So we first tried using the 
existing XSLT templates to go from Doxygen to BoostBook. This is used by 
e.g. ASIO. However, that did not always too well, for us. And I wanted 
more possibilities without having to fight against XSLT each time... 
Therefore we created a (quite simple) tool to translate from Doxygen to 
Quickbook.

It is written in more detail on my blog:
http://barendgehrels.blogspot.com/search/label/quickbook

I would favour this for Boost.Geometry's Index, especially to be able to 
integrate it better. If else, use QuickBook but... if it is one library 
why not one toolset?

Now that I downloaded the tree again, for completeness I repeat the URL:

https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox-branches/geometry/index

I have the same question for tests, why not the pattern Boost.Geometry 
is using?

And for samples (there are not yet, no problem, but it would often be 
helpful) please also conform to Boost.Geometry's current approach (i.e. 
a sort of unit-samples, which can be very nicely integrated with 
QuickBook and our conversion tool...)

Regards, Barend