On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 02:22:41PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > So if we keep it simple, I think the masks can go now in favor of pre-built > single bit LSETs.
A LAYER_NUM can be implicitly converted to a LSET, so that the idea. > Have you tried putting all the static constructors in one file? I had the > idea that they > would be constructed in order of appearance then. Yes, there is a rule for that, it's guaranteed. > Start by defining each layer individually, and build up from there, always > building > another std::bitset in constructors. Yes, this will do *if* every global using them is defined there after it. So pieces from the router and from the layer setup dialog and maybe some other piece around. Not exactly manageable but doable. Also there is a gcc-specific attribute to give priority to the constructor table at link time. > Forget any new operators, I don't see where need them. Operators make ::GetLayerMask go away. Otherwise instead of having mask = LAYER_1 | LAYER_2; you'll have to use mask = GetMask(LAYER_1) | GetMask(LAYER_2); Also there is the possibility that masks/layer will need to be referred to a given layer configuration object or whatever, so I want to be ready to add a reference or something aside of the mask (something like container iterators: conceptually they are pointers but they are associated to their container); in that (pretty complicated!) case, LAYER_NUM maybe couldn't even be simple integers: the worst case in the layer discussion calls for a variable number of copper layers (or maybe a limit of 32 would be reasonable) and a variable number of custom paired and unpaired layer, where board and library have disjoint sets of layers to be merged (or even board-to-board if we consider something like copy and paste). Of course if possible I'd like to avoid such a complicated implementation... The last 'feature' I found very useful is to actually *forbid* conversion from a generic int to a LSET to catch misuse at compile time (I've smoked most of them a lot of time ago but a few cases popped up). The explicit modifier seems to let me keep the possibility to predeclare common mask with standard layers (they must be known at compile time of course). Sadly in C++ you can't remove or add methods to classes after their definition, an alternative would have been to inherit from std::bitset. But then the interface to std::vector<bool> is *completely* different... these are the reason for making a new class instead of a naked std::bitset -- 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
