|
|
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
: Having to duplicate essentially the same code for every subclass (for a
: Copy() function) just so I can make a copy of an object from a
: base-class pointer.
I'm not completely sure what you are talking about, but that sounds a bit
like very dubious coding.
Do you mean that your Copy() method allocates dynamically a new instance
of its own type, copies itself to it and then returns a pointer to this new
instance?
That really badly breaks modular OO design.
: Having to return void pointers and cast them to the
: correct types.
I never have to do this. It also breaks badly modular OO design.
: Mostly having what I can do with an object being
: determined by the type of pointer to it I have, instead of what the
: object can do.
I don't understand this one.
Are you sure you fully understand object-oriented design?
You are also talking too much about pointers. Sounds like you are using
pointers for almost everything.
This is C++, not Java. Here you can use true references and local instances,
true member instances. You don't need to use dynamic allocation for everything,
as in Java (in fact, it's usually a good idea to not to use it unless it's
justified).
: Templates.
What about them?
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|