X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Message-ID: <20151027114407.22323.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:44:07 +0100 From: "Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: "Levente \(leventelist AT gmail DOT com\) \[via geda-user AT delorie DOT com\]" Subject: Re: [geda-user] home/bkerin/geometry_module branch Mail-Followup-To: "Levente (leventelist AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote: > Do we _really_ have so many, so complex geometry code in PCB that it is > worth switching to a lib that brings half million lines of code just in > include/? Yes, that is the important question. I don't think the present PCB code is a strong reason to pick up a heavy dependency. The question is whether such a heavy dependency would allow or enable or at the very least simplify addition of new cool geometry-based things to pcb. If yes (which seems likely to me) then it's worth considering. Maybe there are other candidates too. Lev, what were the specific nice things about CGAL that caught your eye, and how would they be useful/helpful in pcb? //Peter