Le 02/10/2014 13:29, LordBlick a écrit : > In response to a message written on 02.10.2014 01:26, from Wayne Stambaugh: >> On 10/1/2014 3:08 PM, jp charras wrote: >>> Le 01/10/2014 20:42, Daniel Dawid Majewski a écrit : >>>> On 01.10.2014 16:25, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >>>>> They do. It is automatically generated by the compiler just like the >>>>> source code comment explains. Unless you need some special copy >>>>> semantics (not just a direct copy of every class member which is what >>>>> the compiler will generate), you do not need to write your own copy >>>>> constructor. >>>> Ok, so where are nested following python methods ?: >>>> Copy(MODULE self, MODULE src) >>>> Copy(ZONE_CONTAINER self, ZONE_CONTAINER src) >>>> How I could make ?: >>>> Copy(TRACK self, TRACK src) >>>> Copy(VIA self, VIA src) >>> >>> Seems there is a mistake between a copy constructor and the Copy method >>> which exists for some BOARD_ITEMS, but not all (because currently this >>> method is not needed in C++ Kicad code for track/vias) >>> >>> The Copy method copy only some values from an existing source to an >>> existing target. >>> >>> The default copy constructor creates a clone (a new item) of an item. >>> This is very different. >>> >>> I'll add a Copy method (mainly for python scripts) for tracks/vias soon. >> >> Please don't unless there is no other solution. There is no reason to >> create a custom copy method when the default copy constructor is more >> reliable. I promise you someone will add another class member that they >> will forget to add to the copy method. We've been bit by this several >> times in the past. It's a poor design pattern that I do not want to >> repeat. The only time I can think of the use a custom copy constructor >> is when dynamically allocated memory is involved. Are we using copyctor >> feature flag in SWIG when generating the C++ source files? If not, then >> an explicit copy constructor must be defined. You can read about it >> here http://www.swig.org/Doc1.3/SWIGPlus.html#SWIGPlus_nn7. Let see if >> we can get SWIG to do it for us before we travel down the bad design path. > IMHO JP Charas is not going to do with any coping class. That's > misunderstanding. > I suggest to rename all python „Copy” methods to „paramCopy”(or sth similar), > cause in fact they are only coping values of elements between instances of > same > class. > Python formula „newItem = Item.__class__(pcb)” makes new instance of the same > class, so we no need class copy or sth similar… > Apart from this, we have python method „Clone”, which seems unusable - returns > some bogus instance of pcbnew.EDA_ITEM. It's possible to make it workable by > overloading method with creating new instance of the same class > [Item.__class__(pcb)] and then coping values from old to new instance. >
Can you test the existing method: new_item=Cast_to_BOARD_ITEM(item.Clone()).Cast() to create a copy of an item ? -- Jean-Pierre CHARRAS _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
