<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Richard Matsunaga wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid001b01c75d12$650d8d90$b8012b0a@Richard" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name="GENERATOR">
<div><span class="843103515-02032007"><font face="Arial" size="2">I've
just started using the C# bindings and have some questions.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="843103515-02032007"></span> </div>
<div><span class="843103515-02032007"><font face="Arial" size="2">1.
Is the casing used in the bindings a by-product of SWIG, or can this be
changed to follow the usual conventions? e.g. the 'gdal' class, the
'GDAL' namespace, the use of underscores</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This would be nice, but I suspect that there are a number of people out
there using the existing bindings who might object to having to change
their code. Standard usage would have called the GDAL namespace "Gdal",
and the gdal class "Gdal" as well (I think this would work), but I can
live with this quirk.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid001b01c75d12$650d8d90$b8012b0a@Richard" type="cite">
<div><span class="843103515-02032007"></span> </div>
<div><span class="843103515-02032007"><font face="Arial" size="2">2.
Is it possible to make enums out of the constants (since the values are
dynamically generated, even separate classes would be better), so they
have some useful context? It makes it much harder for non GDAL/OGR
experts to find the correct values.</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This would also be nice, but again we have the backwards compatibility
issue. We could keep the GDAL.gdalconst class, but add the enums into
the GDAL namespace, but then the GDAL functions that currently expect
ints would either have to be duplicated for enum versions, or we'd
break code.<br>
<br>
One option would be to fake the enums with classes like:<br>
<br>
<tt>namespace GDAL<br>
{<br>
public class DataType<br>
{<br>
</tt><tt> public static const int Byte = 0;<br>
</tt><tt> public static const int Int16 = 1;<br>
...<br>
}<br>
}<br>
<br>
</tt>We could add these classes in addition to GDAL.gdalconst and allow
people to use them interchangeably.<br>
<br>
Tamas: what do you think?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Sy<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>