I'm not too happy to discard the convenience of C++ operator overloading only to fix a swig warning...
Other than that, if we have to need a named function at least we should have it in functional fashion like col = NextColor(col) or a better name like Advance(col); actually Advance(&col), since we decided not to use nonconst references... in my private branch I am using ADTs even for LAYER_NUM and LAYER_MSK (implemented as enum but ready for 'upgrade'); it would be a real mess to not being able to use operators ++, & and | (for example). Do we really want to make without operator overloading? Being from a LISP background I have no issue with that (since there are no operators and everything is prefix, anyway) but in C++ this is... ugly. I'd like to discuss this (since I have a lot of ++, & and | done on layers, now...) -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
