There are two problems with topexp-explorer based on my experience: (1) The api is quite nonpythonic: uglier code than a simple for-in loop
(2) There are some very subtle tricks necessart to avoid memory problems. In particular, calling ReInit to avoid segfaults using references retrieved after the topexp-explorer object is destroyed On 5/18/10, Denis Barbier <bou...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2010/5/18 Jelle Feringa wrote: >> I urge you not to use these classes, but rather their pythonic nephews >> found >> in OCC.Utils.Topology.Topo. >> These classes are really neat and clean. > > Just curious, what is wrong with TopExp_Explorer? > > I do not understand the benefit of OCC.Utils.Topology.Topo, you > defined many methods (vertices_from_edge, edges_from_vertex, > edges_from_face, faces_from_edge, etc) and to be exhaustive, many more > would have to be added (to deal with shells, solids, comp_solids and > compounds). > Wouldn't it be simpler to expose _loop_topo and > _map_shapes_and_ancestors instead of all these functions? > BTW I believe that l.305 of Topology.py should return 0 instead of None. > > Denis > > _______________________________________________ > Pythonocc-users mailing list > Pythonocc-users@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users > _______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
