Hello Johannes,
Johannes Brunen wrote:
> Hello Carsten,
>
> today I reviewed the code you checked into the trunk with respect to the
> multiswitch core. You did change the MultiSwitch::changed() implementation,
> but I do not understand what was wrong with my initial proposal. Actually,
> I'm more fond of my original expression.
there was nothing wrong with the it, but it required the erase overload
taking two iterators...
> Additionally, you did not add the overloaded erase function to OSGMField.
> IMHO, the interface should be as close to the vector interface as possible
> in oder
> to increase the utilization with respect to the standard algorithms.
hm, I do recall making a conscious decision not to add it at the time,
so there is a chance that there was a reason for that, however now I
don't remember what that reason might have been...
Anyways, I added the erase overload and also changed the changed()
implementation.
> However, thanks for accepting the multiswitch core to the framework at all.
no no, thank You for making the contribution!
regards,
Carsten
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
