On Aug 16, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Daniel Roßberg wrote: > Do we need the new features for this API?
For the API itself, no. For the implementation, it obviously depends on how you define the need. One can argue we don't need C++ altogether, but I think it's a good strategic choice myself. > If I had a C++11 compiler when I started with the core interface I > probably would have used closures for the call-backs. On the other > hand, I know of at least one developer using the core interface who > still has MSVC 2005. Which is precisely why suggested leaving the Core alone. The question is whether to limit additional modules to that same state, or let them use the newer specification. I see the GE as being extensively modular so they don't necessarily have to be the same. >> Having robust NURBS+STEP import/export support will make the GE a fairly >> powerful geometry library that could be embedded into 3rd party >> applications. This would give an application the ability to open and >> display geometry without caring about format or representation types. > > This sounds not like a goal for the next month. Maybe we all have > C++11 supporting compilers then. Exactly my thinking as well. I think a reasonable goal would be to have this capability before the end of the year developed in tandem as the next generation interface gets started. Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
