[Insight-developers] Get_vnl_vector deprecation

[Lorensen, William E (Research)]

I vote for #2


-----Original Message-----
From: Lydia Ng [mailto:lydia_l_ng at hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:54 PM
To: lorensen at crd.ge.com; brad.king at kitware.com
Cc: insight-developers at itk.org
Subject: RE: [Insight-developers] Get_vnl_vector deprecation


Hi Brad and Bill,

I added the GetVnlVector interface to address the consistency issue bug 
#1038.

Do I need to
(1) back out of all the changes I have made so far?
Or
(2) have both GetVnlVector and Get_vnl_vector for now,
finish changing all Get_vnl_vector to GetVnlVector, close out bug #1038
and create a new bug/task to properly add the deprecation warning?

- Lydia


>From: "Lorensen, William E (Research)" <lorensen at crd.ge.com>
>To: "'Brad King'" <brad.king at kitware.com>,"Lorensen, William E (Research)" 
><lorensen at crd.ge.com>
>CC: Insight Developers <insight-developers at itk.org>
>Subject: RE: [Insight-developers] Get_vnl_vector deprecation
>Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:18:17 -0500
>
>I would.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brad King [mailto:brad.king at kitware.com]
>Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 11:13 AM
>To: Lorensen, William E (Research)
>Cc: Insight Developers
>Subject: Re: [Insight-developers] Get_vnl_vector deprecation
>
>
>Lorensen, William E (Research) wrote:
> > API stability will be discussed at the upcoming SPIE meeting. We can
>discuss
> > this issue then.
>
>Then should we just rip out the current deprecation code to get rid of
>the virtual functions?
>
>-Brad
>_______________________________________________
>Insight-developers mailing list
>Insight-developers at itk.org
>http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers