> Not great, but not the end of the world. Reason it's not const? Reason it's
> not named "dbip" instead of "db"?
Changed. Sorry for the bad naming.
> Both of those structures do not have a dbip as they don't belong to any
> particular dbi and conceivably could belong to many simultaneously. This is
> intentional design.
Agreed. But a tree leaf can have that info (a db_i pointer), and tr_a does have
(for OP_SOLID, but it doesn't exist for a comb).
> You need a dbip to walk a tree or a union tree that has been filled in (which
> is what Wu has now). The union tree either has or could have the information
> needed. It obviously would be ideal to not pass the dbip, but that means the
> union tree (or something similar) will need to have the necessary.
Is it a good idea to add a dbip to struct tree_db_leaf (defined below)?
struct tree_db_leaf {
uint32_t magic;
int tl_op; /**< @brief leaf, OP_DB_LEAF */
matp_t tl_mat; /**< @brief xform matp, NULL ==>
identity */
char *tl_name; /**< @brief Name of this leaf
(bu_strdup'ed) */
} tr_l;
Cheers!
Wu------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more!
Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies
and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step
tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58040911&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
