John wrote:
If we want boost to have a point class I think it will really have to be a set of point adapters and point concepts that work for existing types. There are too many points out there that we would have to interact with, both outside of boost and also within boost. For instance it would be nice if algorithms worked with both Boost.Point and the CGAL point.
That is exactly what I am proposing. You hit the nail on the head, there are too many points out there that we would have to interact with. That is the problem I'm solving, that is why I'm submitting the
library
to boost. assert(boost::point_concept<cgal::Point> cgalpt(10,20) == boost::point(10, 20));
and better yet
//construct a cgal polygon data structure with the boost polygon constructor and assert that it is equal to the boost polygon data structure constructed from the same input vertex sequence. assert(boost::polygon_concept<cgal::Polygon> cgalpoly(itBegin, itEnd) == boost::polygon(itBegin, itEnd));
Smooth as butter.
Luke
Hmm... I hope I am not revealing my ignorance too much here but I have not seen concepts used that way before. In my experience they are used with some macros to force an understandable error at compile time when a data type does not support the required syntax. Do you have some code I can see so I can maybe understand better? -- John