On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 07:56:31PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Basically using some wrapper template like
>
> template <class Func>
> void do_it(Func what, base * p)
> {
Ugggh.
> Anyway: in simple words: It would not work at all.
So, basically you haven't come up with a solution that C++ can handle :)
> > I find the current scheme not scalable
>
> It scales to the size we need. What exactly is not scalable?
The size and scope of the inset.h header.
> > and very ugly.
>
> I know no better solution.
Wasn't that my original point ;)
> > Not to mention the recompile of everything when you add a new one.
>
> I am certainly missing the point. If I add an inset I have to recompile the
> parser, the factory, and the inset itself. What else is needed?
A new trait.
> > I am trying to reduce the horrendous size of the Inset/UpdatableInset
> > classes.
>
> No problem with that. As I said: 40 functions should do.
That laready strikes me as too complicated.
> What is the conceptual difference between traits and virtual functions
> except that the former work on static types at compile time and the
> latter on dynamic types at run types?
didn't say there was a conceptual difference.
> > > Moreover, not many people will understand that "pattern" whereas even
> > > the average Java programmer has a good grasp of virtual functions (even
> > > if "virtual" sounds unfamiliar). So from a purely practical POV: Why
> > > bother?
> >
> > I don't buy this argument.
>
> I don't see you technical point.
If we're considering beginning C++ programmers, it's time to throw out
the entire MVC stuff, because I still don't follow it properly.
john
--
"This is playing, not work, therefore it's not a waste of time."
- Zath
