iRel interface updates

[seol at scorec.rpi.edu]

Tim,

I put my questions below.

> On 07/21/2010 05:31 PM, James Porter wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 18:08 -0400, seol at scorec.rpi.edu wrote:
>>> - I think iBase_EntityIterator should be defined in iBase.
>>
>> That's reasonable. I think it should be defined in the same way as
>> iBase_Instance (that is, as a void*) to minimize the amount of changes
>> required for code that uses iMesh/iGeom. The other option would be to
>> replace iMesh_EntityIterator with iBase_EntityIterator everywhere
>> (likewise for iGeom).
>>
>
> I think the latter would be most appropriate, since the entity handle
> types are all in iBase.
>

Do we mean only changing the type to iBase_EntityIterator? It would be
possible to provide iterator functions in iBase too; iBase_getNextEntIter,
iBase_resetEntIter and iBase_endEntIter shared by all interfaces. (SCOREC
iterator is implemented in this way so it can be shared by geom model,
mesh model, geom entity set, and mesh entity set)

>>> - Any specific reasons for not having iRel_getEntSetArrRelation and
>>> iRel_getSetSetArrRelation?
>>
>> I'm not sure if these make sense, but I haven't done much looking at the
>> get/set relation code.
>>
>
> You can't currently relate a single entity/set to multiple sets, whereas
> you can relate a single set to multiple
> entities (indirectly, through a set-set relation).
>

I see iRel_setEntSetArrRelation, iRel_setSetSetArrRelation in iRel.h.
Aren't they for relating a single entity/set to multiple sets?