Hi Jose,
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM, John Phillips <phillips@mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
The author, the reviewers, and the review manager were also all quite conscious of the existence of GGL. This existence was not considered a show stopper in any of the reviews posted, which is where the Boost community expresses such concerns.
Obviously! A paper, a presentation and multiple iterations had been produced and discussion ensued.
It is obvious that the GTL author and the reviewer had close ties
It might be implied but it is definitely not obvious, and more importantly, totally incorrect. So for the record I have absolutely no close ties, of any nature, with neither Intel nor Luke.
as clearly acknowledged in the GTL paper. I assume these were just email discussions
You assume right as Luke already clarified.
Again, yes, the reviewer is an expert in the field but not in the other application domain (GIS)
You must have second guess that from somwhere, but, just for the record, you are wrong. I have expertise in several dommains where geometric computing is applicable: CAD, GIS, Computer Graphics (which is a quite different domain with significantly different requirements) and Computer Generated Imaginery (also different).
that was of interest to reviewers. Otherwise the feedback would not have been so directed to one of the libraries vs the other.
Please don't forget that GGL was not readily available when Boost.Polygon was reviewed, and still not when I was drawing the conclusion for the result. So there was certainly no contention between libraries *at all*. Best -- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com