Barend Gehrels

> > Hey @mloskot, I think this PR is able to merge now. > > or suggest changes if any. It’s big, important and needs to be reviewed and approved...

> > > Hey, @barendgehrels Thanks for your reviews, but I think this point needs a separate PR, because a single PR can not define everything about polyhedral surfaces. >...

Hi @Siddharth-coder13 , sorry for the late reply. I think it looks good now! There is no unit test yet, did you plan to do that in this PR or...

Sorry for my late reaction, I noticed this effort already earlier. It sounds awesome! I will have a close look later.

Hi @olologin , thank you - I'm busy with it (removing rescaling internally) but this takes quite a while. The enhancement will be released one of coming releases (but probably...

Hi Maarten! Nice to hear from you! And thanks for your report! I cannot tackle it immediately but will come back to this soon. Regards, Barend

Hi Maarten, A bit delayed, but I could reproduce it, added a unit test and applied your fix. See #1028 Thanks again for reporting it, including the fix.

No news yet, sorry. It is long term anyway, I've quite some good results (most testcases pass) but, as usual, the last bits take more time. This is probably to...

I'm working on feature/no_rescaling but it requires a specific configuration. I fixed compilation and tested against that branch. The bad news is that in the non-rescaling option the result seems...

Thanks. I can (edit: partly) reproduce it with current branch (fix/other_types). @vissarion for me `long double` seems always correct, but I get the difference in `double` (wrong with rescaling) and...