Le 18/11/2015 22:28, Bill Lorensen a écrit : > I think itkCheck might be better.
Here check() is a function not a macro. The usual ITK naming convention would require Check, not itkCheck. The fact some apple code has hijacked check instead of __check or _Check is a very poor choice. We should not have had any problem with check() (if we except KWStyle which, oddly, missed it) Regards, -- Luc Hermitte > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Matt McCormick > <matt.mccorm...@kitware.com> wrote: >> Hi Seun, >> >> Thanks for discussing the issue. >> >> I think a good name would be "Check". Could you please submit a patch? [1] >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> [1] http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK/Git/Develop >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Seun Odutola <s...@rogue-research.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> Just wanted to bring to your attention a problem I faced working on a >>> project using ITK 4.9 on Mac OS X 10.11, Apple declares a macro called >>> 'check’ that takes just a parameter and apparently there is a name clash >>> with a typedef of ITK’s (see itkPromoteType.h). >>> >>> // snippet >>> template <typename TA, typename TB> struct PromoteType >>> { >>> static TA a; >>> static TB b; >>> >>> // Aimed at supporting overloads >>> template <typename T> static Details::Identity<1>::Type& check(typename >>> Details::SizeToType<1, TA, TB>::Type, T); >>> template <typename T> static Details::Identity<2>::Type& check(typename >>> Details::SizeToType<2, TA, TB>::Type, T); >>> >>> // Common numeric types >>> static Details::Identity<3 >::Type& itkcheck(typename >>> Details::SizeToType<3, TA, TB>::Type, int); >>> >>> // end of snippet >>> >>> I set about trying to fix this issue and on renaming the ‘check’ in my >>> case I chose ‘itkcheck’, rebuilt ITK and ran my project everything worked >>> fine. >>> >>> My proposal to the team if indeed I’m right is the above typedef need >>> renaming as we can’t change Apple’s implementation so it’s most likely ITK >>> will need to fix this. Currently renaming the check typedef works fine. >>> Thanks >>> >>> Regards Seun >>> >>> p.s: I could submit a patch if that’s fine but I would like to know what >>> name the ITK team would prefer to be substituted for the ‘check' typedef >>> above. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Powered by www.kitware.com >>> >>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >>> >>> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit: >>> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.php >>> >>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: >>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ >>> >>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >>> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers >> _______________________________________________ >> Powered by www.kitware.com >> >> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at >> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html >> >> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit: >> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.php >> >> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: >> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ >> >> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: >> http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers > > > _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit: http://kitware.com/products/protraining.php Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at: http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
