Selon Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>: > Back to this, is it OK?
As said in http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2013-December/037738.html, I feel a bit unconfortable with the extension of the OGRwkbGeometryType enumeration that has possible impacts on other parts of OGR. There's perhaps a time where we will touch it, but I'd expect it to ideally embrace Z, M, ZM, circular geometries at once. And that would deserve a RFC. What do you think of keeping it an internal enumeration of OGR, since that's probably all you need for now ? "Or have a separate OGRwkbIsoGeometryType enumeration { wkbPointIso, ... wkbGeometryCollectionIso, wkbPointIsoZ, ... wkbGeometryCollectionIsoZ }, a getIsoGeometryType() method that returns it, and the exportToWkb() methods that calls int getGeometryType(OGRwkbVariant eVariant) { return (eVariant == wkbVariantOgc) ? getGeometryType() : getIsoGeometryType(); }" I'd be happy to hear about other GDAL developers opinion on this. > How are we patching back to SVN? I can convert > it into a patch and attach to a ticket, if that's the path. git-svn can be used to bridge the 2 worlds, but in my recent experience it has been painful to use. So generating a patch and applying it is probably easier. Even -- Geospatial professional services http://even.rouault.free.fr/services.html _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev