Re: [pooma-dev] CompressibleBrickView's makeOwnCopy

[Scott Haney]

Hi Jeffrey,

Whoa, let's wait a second here.

If you remove this code, can you explicitly instantiate View1 as in your 
little example? Jim's point is a good one, but removing it might not be 
the right answer either. To support explicit instantiation, we might 
want to have the function, but simply have a PAssert in the body in case 
it ever gets called.

Scott

On Tuesday, May 15, 2001, at 08:33 AM, Jeffrey Oldham wrote:

> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 07:22:06AM -0600, James Crotinger wrote:
> > > (Engine<Dim,T,CompressibleBrickView>::makeOwnCopy()): New
> > > declaration.
> >
> >
> > "View" engines aren't supposed to have makeOwnCopy(). I'm not exactly 
> > sure
> > what this would mean in general since, in a sense, they don't own 
> > their data
> > in the first place.
>
> OK to commit the following patch to eliminate CompressibleBrickView's
> makeOwnCopy()?  Will the resulting code still solve Dave Nystrom's
> makeOwnCopy() problem?
>
> 2001-05-15  Jeffrey D. Oldham  <address@hidden>
>
>         * Engine/CompressibleBrick.cpp
>         (Engine<Dim,T,CompressibleBrickView>::makeOwnCopy()): Remove 
> this
>         incorrectly introduced function.
>         * Engine/CompressibleBrick.h
>         (Engine<Dim,T,CompressibleBrickView>::makeOwnCopy()): Likewise.
>
> Tested on       sequential Linux gcc 3.0 by compiling library
> Approved by     ???Jim Crotinger???