Mathias Fröhlich wrote: > Catching up with an already heated up discussion. > > IMO: > Tim should go on and include arrays into the property system. > I even believe that aggregates and more sophisticated types will be something > good to have.
There is still something that isn't addressed with his proposal. At this time all types can be converted to all other types. It would be easy to convert any float/doubles or integers to a one element array, but how would a multi-element array be converted to a float or integer? My best guess is returning a NaN which is not very elegant (and which doesn't work for integers). Another way is to just ignore the node if a non-compatible type is requested. Maybe it's a good idea to let Tim include the code to support array-nodes without using it anywhere yet (or provide a patch). That way we can look (and feel) how it is going to work. do some small tests ourselves and make decisions based on our own experience rather than on theoretical assumptions. Erik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
