Subject: Re: [geometry] Run-Time specified geometries
From: Bruno Lalande (bruno.lalande_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-04 16:09:15
Well I could be the first one to argue that it's too conservative ! At
> least for my use case. My variant is populated by all the OGC types,
> that is all the combinations (points, multilines, ...) * (xy, xyz, xym,
That's the kind of use case I had thought could indeed contradict that
approach. I was just hoping it wouldn't come too soon :-)
> I can't not think of a way to reduce this set to the acceptable
> combinations for each algorithms, so believe I'll will have to deal with
> runtime errors at the "default strategy resolution" stage, right ?
Nope, if a compile-time choice must be made about how to handle invalid
algorithm invocation, IMO it has to be done within the "not_implemented"
class itself. For compile-time failure, it would be just like it is now.
For runtime failures, it would have to define a generic apply() function
> Could the use of a "policy" to choose between the conservative (compile
> time error) and the relaxed (runtime error) approaches be an option ?
That would be the ideal way to do I think. And "policies" are currently
what we call "strategies". I'd like them to become more generic in the
future, basically policy-based classes (aka mixins) e.g. user could pass
"pythagoras_calculation() & calculation_type<double>() &
runtime_error_handling()" as the strategy for distance() (or any one of
them with a fallback on defaults for the rest). But we're not quite there
yet and that's a long term goal. To support runtime errors in the meantime
we could propose a more global way to do. I'll think about it.
What would be the algorithms you would need this for?
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net