itaps-parallel Re: typedef structure in iMeshP.h

[Devine, Karen D]

Jason:  Thank you for the explanation.  I agree that distinguishing between
handle types is a good idea.  It might be good to use it more broadly --
that is, not only in iMeshP.  But if we use it, will it cause problems for
the iMesh functions to which we are allowing either a set handle or a part
handle to be passed?

Karen


On 10/21/08 12:20 PM, "Jason Kraftcheck" <kraftche at cae.wisc.edu> wrote:

> Devine, Karen D wrote:
>> Hi, Ting.
>>
>> I admit that I do not know what the ITAPS_DECLARE_HANDLE means or by whom it
>> was added to the interface.  I understood that handles were always void*, so
>> your suggestion seems correct.
>>
>
> I added it.  The header did not contain any definitions of
> iMeshP_PartitionHandle, etc., so I added them the way I thought that they
> should be defined.  As discussed in this thread:
> http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/web-mail-archive/lists/tstt-interface/2008/09/msg0
> 0005.html
> defining them in this fashion is better than using 'void*' because the
> different handle types are distinct (e.g. the compiler will complain if an
> application tries to pass an iMeshP_PartHandle where an
> iMeshP_PartitionHandle is expected.)
>
> - jason
>
>