Frédéric Bron <frederic.b...@m4x.org> writes: >> Change them so that they will fail using anything but C++11? That >> sounds like it would not buy us anything but trouble at the current >> point of time. > > OK, I forget that. > I see that boost is not used. Is it deliberate? These are c++03 > libraries and most of them have been the source of the new standard.
"source of standard" means that they are liable to change particularly in the course of becoming part of a standard. > They are pretty well supported by distributions and work on windows, > mac, linux. They are also humongous, which means a quite larger amount of work for GUB. I had taken a look previously at CGAL <URL:http://www.cgal.org/> since the kind of stuff we are doing with skylines would benefit from ready-made code like <URL:http://www.cgal.org/Manual/latest/doc_html/cgal_manual/Envelope_2/Chapter_main.html> and frankly, doing things like computational geometry tasks is a) a resource drain b) a source for problems We have very few high-quality developers with significant resources for working on LilyPond, and minimal peer review. As a result, any particularly complex task is very likely to be implemented in a quite suboptimal and underdocumented manner and with code paths that rarely receive proper attentation before they make things blow up. The probability that some envelope-finding code dropped into LilyPond by a typical LilyPond contributor is close to the quality of somebody who wrote a Phd thesis focused around the topic is slim. On the other hand, maintaining an uptodate rendering of a large library without occasional surprises is also not an easy feat. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
