Hi Fernando, On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Fernando Cacciola <fernando.cacciola@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Jose,
It is obvious that the GTL author and the reviewer had close ties
It might be implied but it is definitely not obvious, and more importantly, totally incorrect.
So for the record I have absolutely no close ties, of any nature, with neither Intel nor Luke.
Although my words were poorly worded and I apologized, I wanted to add that the review policy doesn't say anything against this so it would not necessarily be negative
as clearly acknowledged in the GTL paper. I assume these were just email discussions
You assume right as Luke already clarified.
Again, yes, the reviewer is an expert in the field but not in the other application domain (GIS)
Otherwise the feedback would not have been so directed to one of the libraries vs the other.
Please don't forget that GGL was not readily available when Boost.Polygon was reviewed, and still not when I was drawing the conclusion for the result.
So there was certainly no contention between libraries *at all*.
Can you clarify ? I don't understand what contention means here ? Also, thank you for joining the thread. I didn't like that you were not present in the thread and why I contacted you regards jose