ickby wrote:I have a few remarks, mostly as I don't think this task should involve features at all.
It has to. That's what we are aiming at, after all.
ickby wrote:but we already learned alot about the topic due to existing codes/experiments.
Not me and not jnxd. And unfinished code isn't a great thing to learn from.
ickby wrote:: That may be nice for fast testing, but this comes for a large price. One need either to cache the operation in toposhape or make an extra datastructure to store the info...
I see no way around storing something in toposhape. I think the storing should be made only on explicit request by the feature coder, to avoid potential blow-up in memory consumption.
The main idea about it is that the information is very useful for developing python features, even ignoring tomonaming stuff overall. The whole BOPTools is based on such information, for example.
ickby wrote:as one could do this experimenting in c++ anyway
my personal dispreference here. Python please!
ickby wrote:Also the TopoShape Naming extensions provide access to data generated from this methods, so why not directly use the intended datastructure?
I haven't really investigated the topic yet, thanks for pointing out. From what I read, I got an impression that it doesn't fit FreeCAD's way of operation, but sinsce you are bringing it up, I assume my impression is wrong and needs reconsideration.