Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] GGL review starts today, November 5th
From: Jose (jmalv04_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-21 12:53:40
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Michael Fawcett
<michael.fawcett_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I'm unsure of the focus of GGL. Given the current offering, I don't
> think GGL is an appropriate name. I don't think Boost.Polygon is
> appropriate either. IMVHO Boost.Polygon should be Boost.VLSI and Luke
> can drop floating point support if he believes it offers no benefits
> to that domain (I'm sure he would love less work :) ).
The paragraph above is way too random!
Each of us can not come up with one idea of what a library should be,
and Boost already clarifies what the high level requirements should
be. From the home page:
"Boost libraries are intended to be widely useful, and usable across a
broad spectrum of applications."
regards