Ok, then I would suggest to revert to the original changes and only
leave the helper traversals.
Doru
On 22 Mar 2010, at 11:30, Simon Denier wrote:
>
> On 22 mars 2010, at 09:15, Tudor Girba wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see that there are changes that go back and forth in the Cook
>> API. For example, FAMIXMethod>>sureIncomingInvocations just
>> returned to the original implementation.
>>
>> What is happening in this area? :)
>
> We are trying to rationalize/simplify/optimize the implementation of
> Cook using some kind of specs. This is mostly brainstorming for now.
>
>
>> Were the original changes of Cyrille just an experiment? If yes, we
>> should leave them out for now. If no, why is the situation reverted
>> only for the case of sureIncomingInvocations?
>
>
> I agree that we should leave them out for 4.0. I think that Jannik
> noticed that DSM tests failed on sureIncomingInvocations and that's
> why it was reverted. One related issue is that we still dont have
> development branches so we cant test the new implementation
> independently (still a few issues to work out in the wizard).
>
>
> --
> Simon
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev--
www.tudorgirba.com
"There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them."
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
Locked
