2016-05-05 22:06 GMT+02:00 Rakshika Bagavathy <rakshika.bagava...@gmail.com>:
...
>> > They can which is why the decision needed is whether to (A) use a
>> generic container of vertices, faces, and normals that directly converts to
>> BRL-CAD and trivially converts to OpenSCAD or (B) a general polyset
>> structure that directly converts to OpenSCAD and trivially converts to
>> BRL-CAD or (C) a more advanced container that will preserve topological
>> structure and probably be easily convertible to BRL-CAD and OpenSCAD.
>
>
>> I'm in favor for using generic programming techniques which means to
>> not invent a new container structure and avoids struggle with
>> conversion issues. This should be an adequate approach for writing a
>> generic mesh healing algorithm.
>
>
> I thought so too, i had suggested it in my first mail. So we could go with
> option (A) that Sean has suggested - where we convert to BRL-CAD directly
> and OpenSCAD trivially. I think this might be better because it will be
> easier and more understandable while making the geometry processing
> structure as well.
Ooh, generic container doesn't mean generic programming. In fact, it
would be explicitly a non-generic programming. (Do you know why?)
However, as I wrote before: You should write yourself some code which
tests your ideas for feasibility.
Regards,
Daniel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
brlcad-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
