Hi, On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:27 -0500, Carsten Neumann wrote: > Hi Gerrit, >
> > Similar the node children should be NULL checked as no NULL child > > is allowed, and other parts of the code rely on this. > > Changed as well. Can we consider moving to a generated Node class ? > > > I hope I got all the semantic side effects ;-) > >> Therefore the .fcd has now supports the following: > >> generatePushToField = "true" / "false > >> hasPushToField = "true" / "false" > >> pushToFieldAs = "myAddFunctionName" > >> > >> generate<funcname> implies has<funcname> > >> <funcname>As implies has<funcname> > >> > >> Of course the first two are only relevant for fields with > >> ptrFieldAccess="custom", otherwise the functions are generated either > >> with the given or default name. > > > > why is anything generated for the custom case ??. I would treat it all > > or nothing. If custom is selected all functions must be implemented > > inside the class and nothing remains in the base class. I don't see > > a reason to implement one half and have the other half generated. > > So I don't see the need for the generate part. The 'has' part if fine > > to select if the generic interface should support a particular function. > > I removed that part. hmm, something seems to be slightly off, your commit still had both items unresolved ?? Or am I missing something. At least the generate part seems to be inactive as far as I can tell. I'll update the node part myself as I'm more concerned about that one. Could you look at the generate part. thanks & kind regards, gerrit ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Opensg-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
