[vtk-developers] Proposing vtkObjectMacro

[Patchett, John M]

Though I don't usually involve myself in VTK development, I think
that obfuscated understandability is part of the reason that I've seen
a large number of otherwise bright developers (students) become
integration impotent when asked to put their ideas/code in
VTK/ParaView...
If a goal is to have contributors, this is a bad idea.


--John.


On 9/13/12 9:22 AM, "Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Utkarsh Ayachit
><utkarsh.ayachit at kitware.com> wrote:
>>> I am in favor of adding the macro, and disagree with Utkarsh in that
>>> we already have the type macro etc and it will remove the need for a
>>> lot of boiler plate code in each class declaration.
>>
>> Note  that vtkTypeMacro() doesn't force you to add anything in the cxx
>> file. You can pretty much not know what that macro does and you're
>> okay. Not so with this macro. Also hiding constructor/destructor is
>> really weird to me. Why would you? I don't think I am thrilled by
>> having to implement function definitions without seeing their
>> declarations in the header. None of the existing macros do that, not
>> even in Qt, as far as I know. Readability of code is far more
>> important that saving typing a few more lines, IMHO.
>>
>I can see your point with the contructor/desctructor. Even with them
>removed I still think this macro would be very useful.
>
>Marcus
>_______________________________________________
>Powered by www.kitware.com
>
>Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
>Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers
>