iterator question.

[Mark Shephard]

Thus I think we are set on this issue. That is the iGeom iterators will 
be changed to be consistent with the iMesh iterators.

I am told that the Latex .tex file for the document is in the svn. Since 
my svn and Latex skills are pretty much zero, could someone volunteer to 
update the document and create a new pdf? If you are the volunteer, 
please let others know so only one person does it and lets us know when 
it can be down loaded to be checked.

Mark

Jason Kraftcheck wrote:
> Mark Beall wrote:
>> So is the iGeom behavior different than the iMesh one then?
>>
> 
> Probably.  Both originally had the iGeom behavior.  When the iMesh behavior
> was corrected, apparently the iGeom version was overlooked.
> 
>> The iGeom behavior doesn't make sense if the iterator is iterating on an
>> empty list (behavior is undefined). The simple fix is to return a null
>> for the value, but then lists can't have nulls (not sure if they can
>> anyhow) and the flag returned by iGeom_getNextEntIter isn't actually
>> needed in that case (since the behavior if you just look at the entity
>> is the same as the iMesh iterator).
>>
> 
> There is nothing that prohibits 0 from being a valid handle value.  So
> returning NULL clearly wouldn't work.  For the current iGeom_getNextEntIter
> definition to work for an empty set, the initEntIter call would have to also
> return a boolean value indicating whether or not the first call to
> getNextEntIter will succeed.
> 
> - jason
>