[OSRS-PROJ] On Proj4...

Glynn Clements glynn.clements at virgin.net
Fri May 31 00:39:59 EDT 2002

Paul Selormey wrote:

> > Of course you may fork the library, and develop in any direction you want to.
> > Making the code more readable, and evolving to a clean C++ implementation has
> > some value but two forks splitting the available maintenance efforts and user
> > base can have a negative effect on both forks.  Nevertheless you have goals
> > you want to pursue, and should your fork satisfy the needs of PROJ.4 users
> > better than the existing fork then I will have more time to concentrate on other
> > efforts.
> I really do not wish to see two different implementations of the
> same library, I will put in all the necessary efforts to come out
> with a C++ implementations with exported C functions (just like the
> OGR and GDAL libraries) to replace the current. Even, though I also
> wish for a C# version, I really need the Java version for a project
> too. ProjJ is a similar Java effort, but a base C++ implementation
> will make it easier to keep the two sources at the same level of
> functionality.

To my mind, the "ultimate" solution would be to formulate the
projection functions as high-level symbolic expressions, to allow:

a) automatic conversion to any programming language, and
b) higher-order operations, primarily differentiation.

The existing format (i.e. macro-ised C) isn't particularly friendly in
that regard.

Glynn Clements <glynn.clements at virgin.net>
PROJ.4 Discussion List
See http://www.remotesensing.org/proj for subscription, unsubscription
and other information.

More information about the Proj mailing list