[vtk-developers] vtkNew in examples (or auto?)

[Bill Lorensen]

Let's leave them as is for now. I want to make sure I understand this.


On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Elvis Stansvik
<elvis.stansvik at orexplore.com> wrote:
> 2017-06-22 19:09 GMT+02:00 Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by auto-fying
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I mean is changing declarations such as
>
>   vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor> actor =
>     vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor>::New();
>
> into
>
>   auto actor = vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor>::New();
>
> I think it would cut down on the number of lines in many examples, and
> make them more readable. (This would only be done in places where the
> type of the variable is still clear from the declaration.)
>
> Elvis
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Elvis Stansvik
>> <elvis.stansvik at orexplore.com> wrote:
>>> 2017-06-22 19:01 GMT+02:00 Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>:
>>>> I prefer vtkSmartPointer because it can be used like any other vtk
>>>> pointer. No need for a GetPointer() is some cases. The example writer
>>>> is free to use vtkSmartPointer or vtkNew. But I would leave them as
>>>> there are.
>>>
>>> Right, that's a valid point. But how about auto-fying the
>>> declarations? (but keep using vtkSmartPointer)
>>>
>>> My motivation is that when reading an example, I'm often squinting to
>>> find the variable names in the declarations, wedged in there somewhere
>>> between all those type names and angle brackets. Especially as the
>>> lines are often broken due to running long.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Other cleanup's sound great. I've also started using vtkNamedColors
>>>> instead of setting float values.
>>>
>>> Great.
>>>
>>> Elvis
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Elvis Stansvik
>>>> <elvis.stansvik at orexplore.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> How about a refactor of the examples to use vtkNew instead of
>>>>> vtkSmartPointer (where it makes sense)?
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>   vtkNew<vtkActor> actor;
>>>>>   actor->SetMapper(mapper);
>>>>>
>>>>>   vtkNew<vtkRenderer> renderer;
>>>>>   renderer->AddActor(actor);
>>>>>
>>>>> instead of
>>>>>
>>>>>   vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor> actor =
>>>>>     vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor>::New();
>>>>>   actor->SetMapper(mapper);
>>>>>
>>>>>   vtkSmartPointer<vtkRenderer> renderer =
>>>>>     vtkSmartPointer<vtkRenderer>::New();
>>>>>   renderer->AddActor(actor);
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would help with the readability of the examples. Or are
>>>>> there other reasons for the prevalent use of vtkSmartPointer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Another option would be to use auto, e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>>   auto actor = vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor>::New();
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, would anyone mind if I did a little naming cleanup, mostly
>>>>> things like "renwin" -> "window" and "iren" -> "interactor"? Those
>>>>> abbreviations are not that bad, but I think it's better in examples to
>>>>> spell out the variables in proper English.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are no objections, I could try to prepare an MR when time
>>>>> permits. If so, vtkNew, or auto?
>>>>>
>>>>> Elvis
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Search the list archives at: http://markmail.org/search/?q=vtk-developers
>>>>>
>>>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>>>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com



-- 
Unpaid intern in BillsBasement at noware dot com