On 28.09.05, Michael Schindler wrote:
> A clear -1 from me for option 3. Just because of what you say:
> > This also makes it impossible to build a normsubpath by
> > first creating an empty one and then filling it with normsubpathitems.
> > This might be unhandy.
> Especially for deformers, ... where new normpaths are built. It is a
> very convenient feature of the normpaths that the can be built in a
> loop without always testing if it has been created already. This is
> what made the smoother e.g. unreadable.
Ok, the alternative would be to first just collect all
normsubpathitems and build the whole normsubpath in the end (when
there is at least one normsubpathitem). That's at least an option.
It would be clear from the very beginning. And doing it that way I
guess it wouldn't create unreadable code.
> On the level of normsubpaths, which are used internally I would like
> to keep the creation procedure with an emtpy normsubpath.
> On the level of normpaths, this could be different.
> What about forbidding to _add_ an empty normsubpath to a normpath?
Ok, that's interesting. We could even silently ignore to add it. I
think this would not create any problems for daily use. What do you
think about that? I kind of like the idea.
Overall I would also like to hear some other opinions (especially from
by _ _ _ Dr. André Wobst
/ \ \ / ) wobsta@..., http://www.wobsta.de/
/ _ \ \/\/ / PyX - High quality PostScript and PDF figures
(_/ \_)_/\_/ with Python & TeX: visit http://pyx.sourceforge.net/