Boost logo

Geometry :

Subject: [ggl] Re: rtree ?
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz)
Date: 2011-11-30 16:43:18

2011/11/29 Barend Gehrels <barend_at_[hidden]>:
> 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 just wanted to start from more native interface since I've never
used any of them. I've switched to QuickBook already. New version is

> 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:

Ok, thanks.

> 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...)

Should tests use hardcoded data or may it be randomized? Or should
there be 2 types od tests, if I want to use this kind of input? First,
using not changing data for regression tests and the other one, using
arbitrary data, for local testing only?


Geometry list run by mateusz at