[vtk-developers] vtkVector class -- proposed rewrite

[David Lonie]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Marcus D. Hanwell
<marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:29 AM, David Gobbi <david.gobbi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:13 AM, David Lonie <loniedavid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM, David Gobbi <david.gobbi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:17 PM, David Lonie <loniedavid at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Would using a typedef be possible for the wrappers? e.g. "typedef
>>>>> vtkVector<float, 3> vtkVector3f"? That would eliminate most of the
>>>>> complexity in this patch.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, no, it won't work, but it would be easy to make it work,
>>>> easier than handling the macro expansion
>>>
>>> Could this be added soon? I hope to submit the vtkChemistry patches to
>>> gerrit soon, and this is a prerequisite. I understand if it will be a
>>> while before this is added, I just want to know if I need to start
>>> thinking about other approaches to the vector class in the meantime.
>>
>> Finalize your design for vtkVector first, and then I'll see what I can
>> do to get it wrapped.  Both the macro approach and the typedef
>> approach are potentially wrappable.  I cannot give a specific timeline
>> for either of them.  Like most of my voluntary contributions to VTK,
>> unless there is a specific incentive, it will happen when I feel like
>> doing it.
>>
> If there is no preferred approach from a wrapping point of view then I
> would suggest we pursue the typedef appraoch as I think that will give
> us the most maintainable code in the long run.

I agree -- I'll have a new patch ready sometime this week.

Dave