geometry2d: Whats the status of geometry2d in the boost vault?
There is an interesting class on the boost vault called geometry2d. What is the status of this class. Its related to the proposed region class. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/geometry2d __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Tom,
There is an interesting class on the boost vault called geometry2d. What is the status of this class.
The classes in the header are basically what I would characterize as "everybody's geometry", in the sense that they codify a widespread, commonly shared understanding of how these basic geometry primitives should look like (some details notwithstanding). Within that framework, they are relatively well-thought and tested, and are generally usable. I do not intend to push them towards the review, though (even when I hypothetically have time for something like that), because IMO it's a waste to implement a whole host of geometrical algorithms/operations for some specific geometry classes, no matter how generic these are. The algorithms are still the same whether you are dealing with your own classes, structs coming from platform APIs, or 3-d party libraries -- or, for that matter, mixing these together. What is needed is not a yet another set of geometric data structures, but rather a truly generic, second-generation geometric *algorithms* library that will work on pretty much everything that fits in conceptually (rather than technically). SFINAE makes it possible, and we have something proprietary along these lines here at work. I'd by happy to elaborate more on specific questions if you are interested to know more. Having said that, if you find geometry2d classes good enough for your needs, feel free to use/evolve/take them over. Hope this answers your question, -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
Tom,
There is an interesting class on the boost vault called geometry2d. What is the status of this class.
The classes in the header are basically what I would characterize as "everybody's geometry", in the sense that they codify a widespread, commonly shared understanding of how these basic geometry primitives should look like (some details notwithstanding).
Within that framework, they are relatively well-thought and tested, and are generally usable.
I do not intend to push them towards the review, though (even when I hypothetically have time for something like that), because IMO it's a waste to implement a whole host of geometrical algorithms/operations for some specific geometry classes, no matter how generic these are. The algorithms are still the same whether you are dealing with your own classes, structs coming from platform APIs, or 3-d party libraries -- or, for that matter, mixing these together. What is needed is not a yet another set of geometric data structures, but rather a truly generic, second-generation geometric *algorithms* library that will work on pretty much everything that fits in conceptually (rather than technically).
SFINAE makes it possible, and we have something proprietary along these lines here at work. I'd by happy to elaborate more on specific questions if you are interested to know more.
Now, if I got you right, this is interesting... I've been using my own generic geometric algorithms that operate on arbitrary geometric objects via traits-based reflection. But of course writing the traits is troublesome and actually unnecesary. Are you using SFINAE for automatic reflexion? Fernando Cacciola SciSoft
participants (3)
-
Aleksey Gurtovoy -
Fernando Cacciola -
Tom Brinkman