Subject: Re: [boost] GGL Review
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-21 21:29:38
Jose wrote:
> Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Michael Fawcett
> <michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Regardless, the point I was trying to make was that (to me) the
>> interface is more important than the implementation at this stage in
>> the library's life, and that I don't think it's fair to base
>> acceptance solely on whether the implementation is 100% robust and
>> numerically stable unless the documentation states says otherwise.
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> This is a very important point in which many agree completely. This is
> an issue related to updating the Boost review process.
>
> The summary to me is that a proposed libary should not merit a Boost
> review if its scope doesn't match Boost goals (clearly stated at the
> beginning of the home page). It's for this reason that I argued
> strongly to Fernando that Boost.Polygon should be withdrawn to avoid
> setting a precedent (despite of other technical merits the library
> has!)
Please state clearly in what ways the scope of Boost.Polygon doesn't match Boost goals.
Regards,
Luke