Hello Daniel! On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Daniel Roßberg <danielmrossb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kalpit, > > Why are you using an unspecific, for command line arguments parsing > designed API for an internal function? Wouldn't it be better to have > a functionality specific interface like for example > analyze_obj_inside()? > Oh yes, my bad. I will have the function *analyze_volume() *(in libanalyze's volume.c) taking the parameters : (struct ged * gedp, fastf_t *volume, rt_db_internal *ip) -- which can be called from *analyze_obj_insize() *using a functab, which will be there in *analyze.c*. This function *analyze_obj_insize() *will be called from *analyze_do() *and hence our primary aim of "analyze" being the API's customer will be served. Am I getting this right now? :) Actually, I thought about not passing the *struct ged* in *analyze_volume() *but it seems that I won't be able to get a raytracing instance without the database instance provided by the *struct ged*. If there is any way in which I can convert an internal db structure to a database instance, there is no need to pass the *struct ged *I guess. Everything else will remain the same for now. I will put the code that forms a *"raytracing context" *as a separate .c file, and write a header or two for the functions in the final public API. Sounds good? :) With Regards, Kalpit Thakkar > > > 2015-06-19 19:24 GMT+02:00 Kalpit Thakkar <ceasy...@gmail.com>: > > Hello! > > > > I had been trying to write the implementation for volume already and > here is > > it's first implementation. I haven't kept API design in mind right now as > > you can see in there, but this one is just to make sure I'm following the > > logic correctly or not. Please have a look. > > > > volume implementation : > > https://gist.github.com/dracarys-stormborn/c894daa679fb670892c8 > > A header having the structures defined : > > https://gist.github.com/dracarys-stormborn/5f64359e90334728df70 > > > > This is a very very naive implementation right now. But things are slowly > > getting clearer to me and analysis on this will make it much clearer. :) > > > > With Regards, > > Kalpit Thakkar > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > BRL-CAD Developer mailing list > brlcad-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list brlcad-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
