buildingSMART / buildingSMART/NextGen-IFC
IfcInteger vs INTEGER
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 64
- Forks
- 4
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Description of the proposal:
Moving from IFC4 to IFC4x1, EXPRESS::INTEGER (EXPRESS internal data type) was overall replaced with a defined type IfcInteger. However, this has apparently not been done for all instances - e.g. IfcDerivedUnitElement. I'm not sure if this is a design decision, or if this has been overlooked.
I propose to either use IfcInteger or INTEGER, but not both.
Describe how it contributes to the objectives (https://github.com/buildingSMART/NextGen-IFC/wiki/Towards-a-technology-independent-IFC): improves consistency.
Is this a proposal to 'add', 'remove' of 'change' entities in the schema (pick one): change.
What do we win: consistency.
What do we lose: chaos.
Schema impact: yes.
Instance model impact: none (I believe).
Backwards compatible: ?
Automatic migration possible: yes.
Additional implications: Perhaps an overhaul should be done for IfcDouble and the rest as well.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.