iterator question.

[Tim Tautges]

I think in all cases, the iMesh interface should take precedent when describing concepts common to that and iGeom.

- tim

Mark Shephard wrote:
> Sounds like the iGeom iterator needs to be changed.
> 
> Carl Ollivier-Gooch wrote:
>> Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
>>> Mark Shephard wrote:
>>>> The Simmetrix people have been looking at the ITAPS iMesh, iMeshP, iRel
>>>> and iGeom interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> One of the questions they have sent us has to do with iterators and is:
>>>>
>>>> "Are iMesh_getNextEntIter and iGeom_getNextEntIter supposed to have the
>>>> same behavior as their documentation describes two different 
>>>> behaviors -
>>>> iMesh_getNextEntIter indicates whether the current call returned data
>>>> (which is fairly standard behavior for an 
>>>> iterator),iGeom_getNextEntIter
>>>> indicates whether the next call will return data (which is kind of odd
>>>> behavior for an iterator)."
>>>>
>>>> I would think they should have the same behavior and the iMesh behavior
>>>> is the right one. Comments please.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think (if I correctly recall the that group discussion about this) 
>>> that
>>> the iMesh one is the correct one.  Returning information about next 
>>> call, as
>>> the iGeom one does, is not usable in mesh modification scenarios 
>>> (consider
>>> iterator at second to last entity when last entity is deleted.)
>>
>> Jason has identified precisely the reason that the iMesh iterator 
>> behavior was changed.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
================================================================
"You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is
   steadfast, because he trusts in you."               Isaiah 26:3

              Tim Tautges            Argonne National Laboratory
          (tautges at mcs.anl.gov)      (telecommuting from UW-Madison)
          phone: (608) 263-8485      1500 Engineering Dr.
            fax: (608) 263-4499      Madison, WI 53706