Tom, Thanks for your reaction, it is nice to hear, and I will have a look at gil. Barend Tom Brinkman wrote:

I'm a long-time follower of this mailing list, and a former "Review Wizard". I think that this geometry is more than adquate for a full review by the boost members. It may not meet everyones needs, but a detailed review of a geometry library would be most welcome and needed. Even if its not approved initially, it will set the standard of what we want in geometry library.

I have a feeling that we have many experts in this area, many of which could give detailed reviews. Any geometry library author willing to throw his hat in the ring so-to-speak should be welcomed and encouraged.

I've reviewed the documentation (1 hour), and the authors appear to be strong domain experts and have more than a fair chance of getting it approved. I thank that a boostified geometry is badly needed. I would also like to help ensure that it is compatible with boost::gil. The two would compliment each other.

Thanks for submitting this library and offering it up for review. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

-- ------------------------------------- Barend Gehrels, Geodan Holding b.v., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, www.geodan.nl