Re: [Boost-users] [Review] GGL review starts today, November 5th

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Jose wrote:

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Michael Fawcett wrote:

...

I'm unsure of the focus of GGL.  Given the current offering, I don't think GGL is an appropriate name.  I don't think Boost.Polygon is appropriate either.  IMVHO Boost.Polygon should be Boost.VLSI and Luke can drop floating point support if he believes it offers no benefits to that domain (I'm sure he would love less work  :) ).

The paragraph above is way too random!

Each of us can not come up with one idea of what a library should be, and Boost already clarifies what the high level requirements should be. From the home page:

"Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a broad spectrum of applications."

I can't understand how that applies to what I said, sorry. I didn't come up with the idea of what the library should be, the library authors did. I believe it's up to the reviewers to determine if the implementation matches the author's intended scope (among many other things). If I had a library that only implemented quad-trees and then proposed it as Boost.Generic Spatial Index, I would think the reviewers would have something to say about that. The Boost.Polygon comments were meant tongue-in-cheeck, note the smiley and "IMVHO". --Michael Fawcett