Hello Robert:
Yes, I forgot the prototype was for position and num elements. Sorry
about that. I guess the confusion is:
_children.erase(_children.begin()+pos,_children.begin()
+endOfRemoveRange);
childRemoved(pos,endOfRemoveRange-pos);
Then we need childRemoving:
childRemoving(pos,endOfRemoveRange-pos);
_children.erase(_children.begin()+pos,_children.begin()
+endOfRemoveRange);
childRemoved(pos,endOfRemoveRange-pos);
If we want to have access to the actual objects before whacking them
from the list.
Take care
Garrett
On Jan 14, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Robert Osfield wrote:
HI Garrett,
On Jan 14, 2008 5:38 PM, Garrett Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a problem with childRemoved taking as an argument a
osg::Node* type. Looking at the code in where childRemoved in the
osg::Group node the indices as mentioned can't really be used to
access the list in which the node was removed. Instead, would it be
better to just pass the osg::Node* to childRemoved?
The unsigned int position is used because the Nodes themselves have
been removed and potentially no longer exist, so it'd be very bad
thing to pass the Node* around.
The concept behind the childInserted and childRemoved is that it
enables the maintenance of data structures that exist on a one per
child basis where there is 1:1 correspondance between the lists that
hold the original child data and the local data.
Robert.
_______________________________________________
osg-submissions mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
_______________________________________________
osg-submissions mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
