commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Neidhart <>
Subject Re: [math] computational geometry = math + graph ?
Date Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:30:14 GMT
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Simone Tripodi <>wrote:

> 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
> releases.
> 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

As Gilles said, the self-containment of CM is a strong point, and I doubt
if this policy should be changed.
OTOH, duplicating things does not make sense either, so we will have to
see. If the addition of these new features
results in a o.a.c.m.graph package, then CM is maybe not the right place
for it.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message