Hello, I am not a Boost developer, but involved in the CGAL project (with a dual license: restrictive open source + commercial). I say that so that nobody later comes, and says I have a hidden agenda and want to kill a competing geometry project. In fact the question I have probably also would concern other Boost packages. And another disclaimer: I subscribed to the mailing list for this formal review, so my question may be strange: What is the overall strategy in the Boost project for accepting new topics for Boost ? First, it seems strange to me that something as specialized as 45 degree polygons is considered to fit in, what I consider as the mission statement of Boost : "We emphasize libraries that work well with the C++ Standard Library. Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a broad spectrum of applications. The Boost license encourages both commercial and non-commercial use. We aim to establish "existing practice" and provide reference implementations so that Boost libraries are suitable for eventual standardization. Ten Boost libraries are already included in the C++ Standards Committee's Library Technical Report (TR1) and will be in the new C++0x Standard now being finalized. C++0x will also include several more Boost libraries in addition to those from TR1. More Boost libraries are proposed for TR2." Source: http://www.boost.org When I say specialized, obviously something like boost::optional also solves a specific problem, but it is completely independent from a particular application domain. Boost.Polygon seems rather related to VLSI and PCBs, and the only criteria it fulfills is the license choice. Second, I am wondering about, when you add a first geometry related library without having the blue-print for "Geometric Computing in Boost", how can you hope that it will ever grow into a coherent whole? best regards, andreas fabri