On 15/04/14 21:44, Martin Landa wrote:
Hi,
2014-04-14 18:03 GMT+02:00 Moritz Lennert <[email protected]>:
[...]
thanks for your useful comments!
One additional reflection, though: I don't think that CGAL provides a C-API
which, IIUC, would mean that the module would have to be programmed in C++.
Somewhat of a showstopper...
Right, such modules would be written in C++. We have already several
modules written in C++, so I wouldn't call it as a showstopper...
Well these modules are generally not core functionality, and for some
(e.g. r.terraflow) C-equivalents exist. And IIRC general consenus on
this list has been to try to avoid C++ code.
But you wrote:
On 08/04/14 14:03, Martin Landa wrote:
> This
> would require a new dependency for GRASS. CGAL is very powerful
> library and could be probably used by other modules in the future.
This would imply a more extensive use of the library and thus more C++
modules which would be a move away from current practice (at least in
the way I have perceived it).
Moritz
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
