On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:08:06PM +0400, Vladimir Uryvaev wrote: > > 1. Before, I avoided uncontrolled implicit conversions between ints and > lengths, which are object to trace. Now, I found, that at this stage I could > write cast methods (LENGTH(int) and operator int()), which automatically call > comversion between new and old units. So, while code wasn't completely > checked, old and new units can live together, without explicit conversion.
Please, that kind of use of casting operator is pretty evil! And anyway I don't like the idea of a length object, as we obviously decided eons ago. A length should be an int (or a suitably long int), period. i.e. typedef long int LENGTH; /* This is a suitable length datatype */ Decide on the length scale and you're set. Even on an algebraic interpretation a length *is* a scalar, not something else. > 2. Make VECTOR_PCB type direct replacement to wxPoint, so conversion to > wxPoint should be just like with int. As before, what would be the difference between a VECTOR_PCB and a wxPoint? > 3. Then come 'revert' will be done, so code would look as before, without > FROM/TO_LEGACY_LU, and should compile and run correctly, and that's the proof > that class LENGTH designed correctly. I don't want a class LENGTH :D > So after all LENGTH_PCB type can obviously be switched to int, and again, all > should work, and then work is done. Uhm ok, you're talking of prototyping for fixing. I retract the assertions, then. -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
