Etienne, Frank, The original idea was to save space with the byte type, although I admit bools are a rather unusual case. If we represent them as ints it might be more straightforward just to use the int form of ValuesIO instead. How about removing the bool form of ValuesIO and should a future driver support bools it can treat them as ints?
Sam On 15 May 2013 09:52, Etienne Tourigny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Frank Warmerdam <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Sam, >> >> It looks good to me, though I'm dubious about the value of treating >> booleans as Byte instead of integer. >> > > everywhere else booleans are defined as integers like this > > int bSomeVar; > > >> >> Best regards, >> Frank >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Sam Gillingham <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I propose a motion to get RFC 40 - "Improving performance of Raster >>> Attribute Table implementation for large tables" adopted. This adds some >>> new functionality for GDAL 2.0. Even and others have made suggestions and >>> these have been incorporated into the RFC: >>> >>> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc40_enhanced_rat_support >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sam. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gdal-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- >> I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, >> [email protected] >> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam >> and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software Developer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gdal-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev >> > >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
