Jose wrote:
5) Boost failed to set the scope for a geometry library/ies and created tension with candidate library authors
I agree with this. I think that in the rush to get their own vision of a geometry kernel accepted, all the geometry authors let go the notion of having a single common representation for each geometry type. Unfortunately as can be seen from the discussions about geometry there hasn't been consensus on much of anything. Well, beyond the more trivial things like agnostic compile time access to coordinate sequences (the bicycle shed.)
Clearly there was no consensus in this library, and no clear discussion if one single library was possible (I understand your points that multiple libraries in this case may be preferable but still that is not incompatible with a complete design discussion)
I did vote that Polygon should be accepted and still believe it should based on its merits. I should note that subsequent disagreements have already come about WRT how data structures are different between GGL and Polygon (specifically the way polygons are defined). Clearly the community has so far failed to produce a way of defining geometry in a form that arguably should be common for all geometry libraries. I suspect this happens because most of the authors have the goal of adapting long term projects into a Boost library rather than building a common one from scratch. I suppose the question is whether the community should be reinforcing this practice? Regards, Brandon