On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 1:13:45 PM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote:
> If two classes have nothing in common from the implementation side > deriving them from the same base class still might have a big advantage: > You can make a pointer to an object of that base class and access all the > common members without casting them > In my opinion, that is the opposite of this situation: I believe the two classes have quite a lot in common functionality, some of which has the same implementation now (with duplicated code) and other parts should have the same implementation. But (for these two classes) I can't think of any use for a pointer to base class. The owner/client of either object knows which one it is using and has no interest in the other, nor in any abstraction covering both. So on the general topic of inserting common base classes, you have a valid point. But regarding this specific question of adding a common base class, common implementation of matching functionality is the only factor. -- A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/8c96ca5e-cdc6-4bc4-8c2a-fa2762533b41n%40googlegroups.com.
