Closed timofeymukha closed 2 months ago
A bit nitpick, but looks a bit strange that all bc's are calling
init_base
. Shouldn't the logic rather beinit()
in the type, and that init might callinit()
(can be callinit_base
) in the base type
So what I am aiming for eventually is that init
is deferred in the base time and follows an abstract interface
. Since you can't have a default implementation for a deferred routine, the name of the constructor for bc_t
has to be called something else. We used init_base
in a few hierarchies, so I picked it up here as well. So, then init
will call init_base
in the beginning to setup the base type. The deferred init
is not quite there yet, but this PR is kind of prepping for that :-).
@MartinKarp Whenever you have time :-). A new batch of updates is coming.
This continues the series of PRs on cleaning up
bc_t
and descendants.bc_t
and implemented in all types.bc_t
are calledinit_base
andfree_base
to letinit
andbase
be deferred. This is similar to other hierarchies we have.bc_t
now. This is perhaps the easiest if we will have a common factory for all types. So a clean slate in that sense, and then we see if we can combine/remove some bcs or introduce and extra layer of inheritance.init
instead of the individual constructor-like routine names. Hopefully to spread to all types under one interface.coef
component was removed, using now the one inbc_t
.