Re: [Gzz] PEG vobcoorder_culling--humppak (fwd)

[Asko Soukka]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:06:41 +0200
From: Tuomas Lukka <address@hidden>
To: Asko Soukka <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Gzz] PEG vobcoorder_culling--humppak

On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:52:02AM +0200, Asko Soukka wrote:
> Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Tuomas Lukka write:
> > > What do you mean by duplicating the box? I mean that if you do
> > getSqSize on the coordsys returned by cull(), it should return the
> > same as it did for parent.
>
> Oh, it really should. And until now it getSqSize was not implemented in
> CullingCoordSys :/ Well, now it is.

Did you fix it the right way:

        FIRST make a failing test
        THEN fix it

? ;)

> > > "Exluding the shouldBeDrawn test, CullingCoordSys works like its parent
> > > coordinate system"? As the box?
>
> Isn't the box a part of a coordinate systen? So, CullinCoordSys refers to
> its parent coordinate system, it also return the box of its parent
> coordinate system?

Should probably be specific about it, because boxes are pretty new.

> > > > HMMM... maybe we should have four separate PEG tracks:
> > > >         META
> > > >         ARCHITECTURE
> > > >         INTERFACES
> > > >         IMPLEMENTATION
> > > > with separate tables on the pegboard?
> > Yes, but OTOH these really *are* different issues. Of course, pegboard.py
> > could generate differently sorted versions?
>
> So, we'll build one big pegboard for all of the pegs and separate
> pegboards for all the different TYPEs? Should these pegboard be in the
> same output file as the big pegboard?

Actually, maybe "keywords" would be the right approach: each PEG can list
as many keywords as it wants and for each keyword, there is a list of PEGS
with that.

        Tuomas