[vtk-developers] vtk-developers Digest, Vol 158, Issue 21

Elvis Stansvik elvis.stansvik at orexplore.com
Fri Jun 23 07:58:28 EDT 2017 

2017-06-23 11:29 GMT+02:00 David Cole <DLRdave at aol.com>:
> One thing I would point out is some folks who might want to compile
> the VTK examples may be using a slightly older version of VTK, and
> perhaps one that is not even being compiled with a modern compiler
> capable of compiling C++ 11...
>
> So I would refrain from using "auto" in the examples until such time
> as all the people who want to build an example are pretty much
> guaranteed to be using a VTK which requires C++ 11, and therefore a
> compiler capable of dealing with C++ 11 constructs.
>
> I wouldn't do the "auto" thing just yet.

Alright, that makes sense.

Elvis

>
>
> David C.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Elvis Stansvik
> <elvis.stansvik at orexplore.com> wrote:
>> 2017-06-23 10:33 GMT+02:00 Elvis Stansvik <elvis.stansvik at orexplore.com>:
>>> Sorry, accidently hit send. Fixes below.
>>>
>>> 2017-06-23 10:29 GMT+02:00 Elvis Stansvik <elvis.stansvik at orexplore.com>:
>>>> 2017-06-23 1:21 GMT+02:00 Andrew Maclean <andrew.amaclean at gmail.com>:
>>>>> Hi Bill, Elvis,
>>>>>    Elvis, personally I wouldn't like to see the homogenisation of the
>>>>> examples by doing what you propose.
>>>>> The reasons are:
>>>>> 1) One of the advantages of the examples is seeing the different approaches
>>>>> used by the contributors.
>>>>> 2) It may dissuade contributors by implicitly forcing them to use a
>>>>> particular approach.
>>>>> 3) One of the really useful things in the example is the different ways VTK
>>>>> is used.
>>>>
>>>> I absolutely agree with 1 and 3 (which I think are the same?), but I
>>>> don't see how changing to auto would in affect anything in this
>>>> regard.
>>>>
>>>> I also don't see how it would be a homogenization. The declarations I
>>>> would change are already homogeneous in that they're all
>>>> vtkSmartPointer<Foo> a = vtkSmartPointer<Foo>::New(). Changing to auto
>>>> would not make it more or less homogeneous.
>>>>
>>>> It would be a
>>>
>>> ... It would be homogenisation if I'd change all
>>> vtkNew/vtkSmartPointer to auto a = vtkSmartPointer..., but that's not
>>> what this is about.
>>>
>>>> Note that this is not about changing vtkNew to vtkSmartPointer.
>>>>
>>>> And how would changing to auto in any way affect the approach taken by
>>>> the example?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To me it matters little whether:
>>>>> auto actor = vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor>::New();
>>>>> vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor> actor =
>>>>>     vtkSmartPointer<vtkActor>::New();
>>>>>
>>>>> or whether "ren/renWin" is used instead of "renderer" or "rendererWindow" in
>>>>> the examples.
>>>
>>> It matters little to me too, but it does matter. I think it's almost
>>> indisputable that
>>>
>>>     auto someVar = vtkSmartPointer<SomeLongTypeName>::New()
>>>
>>> is more readable than
>>>
>>>     vtkSmartPointer<SomeLongTypeName> someVar =
>>>         vtkSmartPointer<SomeLongTypeName>::New();
>>>
>>> especially since the latter leads to many more lines to scan across
>>> when looking for something in the examples.
>>
>> Another small plus I see with using auto is it's a keyword which would
>> be highlighted, so the declarations would stand out more.
>>
>> E.g. looking at the code for this example
>>
>>     https://lorensen.github.io/VTKExamples/site/Cxx/Filtering/ConnectivityFilter/
>>
>> I find it hard to quickly answer "what are the declarations?", since
>> they have no highlighting compared to the surrounding statements. Had
>> they been auto, it would have been easier since I think auto would
>> have been highlighted.
>>
>> I think quickly identifying the variables involved helps the reading
>> of the examples.
>>
>> Elvis
>>
>>>
>>> So, in short I agree with everything you say, but I can't see how
>>> changing one way of doing declarations to another is a homogenization.
>>> And I do think spelling matters.
>>>
>>> I'm perfectly OK with leaving the examples exactly like they are
>>> though, just wanted to explain how I see it.
>>>
>>> Elvis
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of more importance are explanatory notes in the examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill, I see you are using vtkNamedColors. This example shows what other
>>>>> things you can do with this class:
>>>>> https://lorensen.github.io/VTKExamples/site/Cxx/Visualization/NamedColors/
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, assign colors by name:
>>>>> renderer->SetBackground(namedColors->GetColor3d("SteelBlue").GetData
>>>>> ());
>>>>> Create your own named color (in this case a red with an alpha of 0.5):
>>>>> namedColors->GetColor("Red", rgba);
>>>>> rgba[3] = 0.5; namedColors->SetColor("My Red", rgba);
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>    Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: Elvis Stansvik <elvis.stansvik at orexplore.com>
>>>>>> Cc: vtkdev <vtk-developers at vtk.org>
>>>>>> Bcc:
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:32:55 -0400
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [vtk-developers] vtkNew in examples (or auto?)
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ___________________________________________
>>>>> Andrew J. P. Maclean
>>>>>
>>>>> ___________________________________________
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>

More information about the vtk-developers mailing list