commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <>
Subject Re: [math] computational geometry = math + graph ?
Date Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:14:37 GMT
Hi Gilles,

having a self-contained library is indeed *really* important, you get
a big +1 from my side.

Anyway, I'd suggest you to adopt a strategy of shading [graph] stuff
useful for math, without duplicating the code nor bring the [graph]
dependency in [math].

[graph] codebase is ATM in a decent state, what we miss is a little
bit of documentation and 2-3 algorithms impl, but in therms of design
I think we found a way and additional stuff can be added later in new
OTOH, we are still a little far from having  arelease in the immediate
future, so I cannot promise "we are ready in 1 month" to release :P

All the best,

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Gilles Sadowski
<> wrote:
> Hello.
>> after reading the issue MATH-751[1] about computational geometry
>> algorithms I realized it could make sense to look at what we already
>> did in [graph], especially in terms of data structures. Things like
>> triangulations, Voronoi diagrams, etc. would need graph
>> representations anyway -- IMHO [math]ers should avoid to reinvent
>> the wheel and/or create a different representation for graphs.
>> Of course the downside is that [graph] in currently in Sandbox
>> without a Release. Still, if we agree that it would make sense to
>> "link" the two, maybe it is worth to wait a bit more for MATH-751
>> until [graph] is ready (we're working on that!).
>> Looking forward to comments!
> In principle, +1 for sharing.
> But this will bring back the issue that some people did not want Commons
> Math to have any external dependencies...
> Best regards,
> Gilles
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message