"Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:4526579E.6040003@sympatico.ca...
Andy Little wrote:
"Lubomir Bourdev" <lbourdev@adobe.com> wrote in message
Another problem is that a library cannot consist of just concepts. You need to have concrete models. GIL provides only the models it needs in practice - a 2D image comprised of pixels in a specific color space. So another reason we can't have a "Display Matrix" library is that we don't have existing models that go with it.
Yes I think this is the heart of the problem! The library claims to be generic but is in fact tightly coupled to one domain.
IMO 'generic' doesn't have to translate to 'domain-agnostic'. Generic here means that the individual models used are orthogonal, so it is easy to combine different representations of these models into working code. There is the 'Image' container, and there are various 'Pixel' types images are composed of. Generic means that both models are presented as concepts (and in fact I'm totally delighted to find the documentation use Concepts to present them !),
I wasnt going to bring it up, but I was specifically told not to use Concept docs. OTOH maybe different rules apply depending on who you are I guess?
making it easy to provide alternative Image and Pixel implementations. I'm working on a library for high-performance signal and image processing (http://www.codesourcery.com/vsiplplusplus) and I'm looking forward to trying out GIL's Pixel types with my own Matrix types. That's what 'generic' is all about !
Its looks very nice.... regards Andy Little