[gf] Remove TF_FOR_ALL usage. #3476
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
update the loop to a c++11 iterator.
update TF_FOR_ALL to C++11 iterator. Removed pointer where references where define by the iterator.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of Change(s)
Update files under
pxr/base/gfby replacingTF_FOR_ALLwith C++11-style range-based for each loop.Additionally, updated pointer usage to align with the new iterator approach, since we now handle references directly rather than raw pointers.
Ongoing Issue(s)
This PR addresses issue #80, though many more instances still need to be resolved. Given the age of this issue (approximately 6–7 years), I wanted to reopen the discussion to evaluate its relevance. Specifically, is the header iterator.h still necessary?
Previous attempts to address this issue (e.g., #398) have been closed without further updates to the thread. I look forward to hearing thoughts on whether we should proceed with this.
Checklist
I have created this PR based on the dev branch
I have followed the coding conventions
I have added unit tests that exercise this functionality (Reference:
testing guidelines)
I have verified that all unit tests pass with the proposed changes
I have submitted a signed Contributor License Agreement (Reference:
Contributor License Agreement instructions)