A few more thoughts on my (nano-) review of Boost.Polygon.
Please always state in your review, whether you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library!
Boost.Polygon *should* be accepted as a Boost library. BUT it should NOT be called "Boost.Polygon" - as previous noted by Dave Abrahams - because it is not as fully generic as is possible. Boost.Polygon2D4590 perhaps ;-) I do not believe that Boost is *only* about stuff that can be considered for C++ Standardization. Stuff that is useful (with Good Quality) is also BoostWorthy IMO. 'Boost.Polygon2D4590' clearly does need some people's expectations and needs, and promises meet my expectations for quality. This would not preclude other library (or libraries) that aspires to be more generic. Although C++ provides tools to make things generic, there are still limits to what can be done without a price in compile and/or run time. 1D, 2D and 3D really have major differences that are still difficult to 'program' - as I have found just drawing plots. So I conclude from reading the discussions that some more learning is inevitable. It would be better to accept the real difficulties, and not expect to do the job in one pass. If necessary, to accept Boost.Polygon2D4590, Polygon1, Polygon2 ... Meanwhile I think it would be a bad mistake to not make something useful available NOW, especially when supported by a major company. If this library is rejected, its Open Source development will probably cease. The Best is the Enemy of the Good. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830, mobile +44 7714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com