Hi Phil,
In the review result announcement, Fernando listed many of my minor complaints about the library but did not address this suggestion, or the existence of GGL "in the wings", at all.
You are correct... as I said in another post I really intended to address all objections but as GGL review started I had to compromise. So, FWIW, I totally agreed with Luke's own response to your suggestion: that there is absolutely no need to reject Boost.Polygon as a mean to make sure GGL has a chance to be accepted. The one thing that I could not state on my results is this: I had followed GGL from the begging, as I did GTL, and I know enough of both to be certain that both *can* coexist within Boost, even in spite of their high impedance in some region of the fundamental base level. I believe they can and should coexist because I don't think any of the libraries is good enough at the realization of a truly generic common base, yet they offer somewhat complementary views to it. I can picture a future where the *experience* of these two proposals being used by many people with totally separate expectations and requirements will light some insight into what it takes to have a really common and generic geometric playground. Best -- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft Consulting, Founder http://www.scisoft-consulting.com