7a1686daa5
Some checks failed
C++ Tests / test-fast (pull_request) Successful in 2m26s
API Docs / doc-build (pull_request) Successful in 51s
Markdown link check / check (pull_request) Successful in 48s
C++ Tests / test-cgal (pull_request) Failing after 11m25s
C++ Tests / quality-gates (pull_request) Successful in 2m22s
Three reviewer-meeting deliverables in one commit.
(1) output_uv_map for the two remaining DCE entries
─────────────────────────────────────────────────
* Discrete_inversive_distance.h: full implementation. After Newton,
reconstruct effective Euclidean edge lengths from the converged
log-radii via the Bowers-Stephenson identity
`ℓᵢⱼ² = rᵢ² + rⱼ² + 2·Iᵢⱼ·rᵢ·rⱼ`, populate a temporary
EuclideanMaps with `lambda0 = log(ℓᵢⱼ²)`, and reuse the existing
`euclidean_layout(mesh, 0, eucl)` priority-BFS. Per-vertex
Point_2 coordinates written into the user-supplied pmap.
Optional `normalise_layout(true)` applies the canonical PCA
centroid + major-axis rotation, same as the other 3 entries.
* Discrete_circle_packing.h: throws std::runtime_error with a
clear pointer to Phase 9c rather than silently producing
nonsense. CP-Euclidean is face-based; the faithful output is a
per-face circle packing in ℝ², not a per-vertex Point_2 map.
A true layout requires BPS-2010 §6 (~150 lines, on the porting
roadmap as Phase 9c). Failing loudly is the honest default.
Tests: 2 new cases in test_cgal_phase8b_lite.cpp
(OutputUvMap_InversiveDistance_PopulatesPmap;
OutputUvMap_CPEuclidean_ThrowsClearly). Both green.
Suite total now 259 (was 257, +2). CGAL subtotal: 234 → 236.
(2) Reviewer meeting documents
──────────────────────────
New directory doc/reviewer/ with three files:
* briefing.md — one-page orientation for the reviewer.
What the project is, where to look first
(https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/), the headline
evidence (tests/coverage/sanitizers/license), what we want from
them, what's deferred and why, and the 5 questions in a separate
file.
* questions.md — the 5 concrete decisions we want their second
opinion on:
Q1 Phase 9c (port-literal vs re-derive)
Q2 Phase 9b-analytic (worth ~2 weeks for ~6× speedup?)
Q3 CP-Euclidean output_uv_map (build now or defer?)
Q4 CGAL submission strategy (one package or five?)
Q5 geometry-central cross-validation co-authorship
Plus an explicit "what would you say no to?" question at the
bottom — negative feedback is the highest-value information.
* agenda.md — my own internal playbook (NOT to be sent).
60-min flow: 5-min thank-you, 10-min architecture tour,
30-min for Q1-Q5 in the order Q4-Q1-Q2-Q5-Q3, 5-min "no"
question, 5-min wrap-up. Includes post-meeting memo template
to fill out in the 30 min after.
* README.md — index for the directory; says which file goes
to whom and when to send.
(3) locked-vs-flexible.md known-limitations update
─────────────────────────────────────────────
"output_uv_map covers 3 of 5 entries" → "covers 4 of 5".
CP-Euclidean's throws-clearly behaviour documented as a Phase 9c
deliverable rather than a passive gap.
Bonus: extended .codespellrc ignore list (acknowledgement, the
British-English spelling I used in agenda.md).
Verifications on this commit:
259/259 tests pass (0 skipped)
scripts/check-test-counts.sh: OK (23 + 236 = 259)
scripts/quality/license-headers.sh: OK (66/66 SPDX)
python3 scripts/quality/cgal-conventions.py: OK (0/6 violations)
scripts/quality/codespell.sh: OK (0 typos)
scripts/quality/shellcheck.sh: OK (0 findings)
python3 scripts/check-markdown-links.py: OK (143/143)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reviewer meeting materials
A single landing page for the three documents associated with the external-reviewer meeting (Springborn/Bobenko alumnus, May 2026).
| Document | Audience | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
briefing.md |
the reviewer | one-page orientation: what the project is, where to look first, what we want from them |
questions.md |
the reviewer | the 5 concrete decisions we want their opinion on (skim before the meeting) |
agenda.md |
me | my own meeting playbook: timing, order, the "no" question, post-meeting memo template |
After the meeting, a fourth file 2026-XX-XX-meeting-notes.md should
land here too — the memo template at the bottom of agenda.md is the
suggested structure.
When to send to the reviewer
- briefing.md + questions.md: as part of the meeting-confirmation email, ~5 business days before the meeting. Subject line: "Pre-read for our conformallab++ chat (~15 min)".
- agenda.md: never send. This is internal scaffolding.
Quick links the reviewer should bookmark
- 🌐 Reviewer-hub landing page: https://tmoussa.codeberg.page/ConformalLabpp/
- 📦 Source: https://codeberg.org/TMoussa/ConformalLabpp
- 📝 Architecture decisions:
../architecture/locked-vs-flexible.md - 📐 Schläfli derivation (for Q2):
../math/hyperideal-hessian-derivation.md