The only people who have responded to my request for feedback seem to be other geometry library writers, and from those responses, I didn't really get the sense that
Brandon wrote: they
had really investigated what my library tries to do (I.e. all talk about merging with their works with little feedback about the substance of my
library.)
The notion of a concept driven traits based interface is a bit different than simply having users define their points in terms of a boost::point type. Same for the segments and polygons/lines. With my library I'm really trying to define an interface where any user defined geometry type can be used and the traits specialized on their type provide the necessary mechanisms for interaction with the algorithms in the
Brandon, I'm confused that you seem to be disappointed by the response you have gotten. I skimmed the code and noticed several things I like about your code. It was neat, had good comments, followed Hungarian notation (actually I don't like Hungarian notation itself, but I like that you have a disciplined and professional style), implemented valuable algorithms that I am interested in, and used template techniques so similar to my own that they even have some of the same names: point_type, coordinate_type, coordinate_traits, etc. I emailed you off list immediately, asking questions to help me investigate further into your code, to inform you of the lay of the land in boost wrt. Barend's library and to suggest we work together. After you didn't reply, I went back to my own work and didn't bother to read your code further. If you can't be bothered to talk to me, why should I review your code or offer feedback? I guess we are both disappointed. Whatever expectation you had when you submitted your library to the vault, I'm sorry that it wasn't met, but you could have set that expectation more realistically by looking at the list archive from the last several rounds of geometry discussion. One tip, post code snippets to the list. Don't expect people to dig through your vault submission to find out what you are doing. Very few will. Package your design for the list in a concise email with examples and explain it. You will get the feedback you wanted that way. If you really want to talk to people on the boost list who are interested in geometry other than Barend and myself, I can send you a list of their email addresses (or you can look them up in the list archive) and you can ask them directly to take a look at your library. It is possible they weren't subscribed at the time or overlooked your submission in the volume of unread boost email that can easily pile up in an inbox. library. Please read the list archive, this is not a new idea around here. Depending on when you had the idea you may have thought of it first, but this is what we've already been discussing wrt. geometry type systems. I'm optimistic that Barend's new interfaces will look like what you describe and we can start moving toward a consensus. I also welcome the fact that you are advocating for the same type of interface as I am, because it makes it more likely that an eventual boost geometry library will work the way you and I appear to agree that it should.
I'm still trying to finalize some design issues and would like to complete that before writing documentation. Soon hopefully!
Please share these design issues with us. Perhaps the boost community can help. Respectfully, Luke