Parameterization: BaseMaterialImpl: typeID
|Status:||Rejected||Start date:||11 Jul 2020|
replace it by some object-oriented mechanism
#1 Updated by rbeerwerth 3 months ago
Why should this existing mechanism not be used?
It uses the modern
enum class es, hence there should be no unexpected confusions and it provides a very readable way of distinguishing the materials in code.
I am absolutely not sure how many changes on the materials machinery will be necessary according to the roadmap, or how much of this will be realized at higher level in the GUI. For the moment, my recomendation is not to touch this isolated, but, if at all, in a concentrated effort after finalizing requirements regarding material parameterization and when deciding how and where to implement them.
I think, we should create an envelope task "Materials" where the whole complex should be analyzed, starting with the status quo and what changes are necessary.