[Insight-developers] Adding Concept Chechking "float"/"double" to pixel type of GradientAnisotropicDiffusion

[Bill Lorensen]

Steve,

Here is the pointer to the ITK backward compatibility document (draft):
http://www.insightsoftwareconsortium.org/wiki/index.php/Administration-BackwardCompatibility

Bill

On 8/15/07, Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> According to our backward compatibility policy, the introduction of
> compiler errors should be avoided at all costs. A compiler error is
> typically crytic especially in templated code. A runtime error message can
> be very descriptive to the owner of the code. As you stated, the development
> team failed to place this restriction on the code originally. Often, the
> person recompiling the application code may not be the same person who wrote
> the original application. Also, some time may pass between version updates
> of third p[arty ( e.g. ITK, VTK) code.
>
> Granted, there will be times when a compile error cannot be avoided, but
> this should be a last resort.
>
> I was just going to quote the ITK Bacrwd Compatibility document, but I'm
> emrassed to say, I can't find it on the internet. I'll track it down...
>
> Bill
>
> On 8/15/07, Steve M. Robbins <steve at sumost.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On 8/15/07 8:12 AM, "Bill Lorensen" <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Luis,
> > > >
> > > > This change may cause backward compatibility problems. Old code may
> > no longer
> > > > compile and the compiler error for the conept checking is cryptic on
> > some
> > > > compilers. We should warn the user and give explicit instructions on
> > how to
> > > > repair the code in the warning message.
> > > >
> > > > I understand that the current code is not producing correct results.
> > But that
> > > > is the fault of the itk development team and not the user of the
> > code. We
> > > > should notify users in an instructive way on how to fix their code
> > so that it
> > > > produces correct results. A cryptic compiler error is not
> > informative.
> >
> > For my curiousity only: how is it a failure of the ITK development team?
> > Naively, it seems the failure is not to have had the concept checking
> > from Day 1.  Or did you have something else in mind?
> >
> > For what it's worth (not being an ITK developer and never having seen
> > the fallout of a concept check failure), I tend to agree with Luis.
> > IMHO, it is better to have the build fail than the execution because
> > the user may not be in the position to fix the error, assuming they
> > see the message at all.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -Steve
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iD8DBQFGwyZN0i2bPSHbMcURAtAaAJ4qVgiuaetMmebNEezc2JIxg8qzeACeJt6Q
> > xH09gWNN53ryTkubhSukdxI=
> > =lyp8
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Insight-developers mailing list
> > Insight-developers at itk.org
> > http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.itk.org/mailman/private/insight-developers/attachments/20070815/f083bb90/attachment.html