Manuel wrote:
[..]
well. I think that this is not neccesary because in the end the
methods will be of the same class.
i make this:
FACTORY_H
typedef void (*PtrMethod)(std::vector<std::string>);
class Factory
{
private:
map<const char*, PtrMethod*, ltstr> theMap;
protected:
Factory();
~Factory();
Object * method1(std::vector<std::string>);
Object * method2(std::vector<std::string>);
public:
Object *
getObject(std::string,std::vector<std::string>);
};
FACTORY_CPP
Factory::Factory()
{
map["method1"] = &method1;
map["method2"] = &method2;
}
Object * Factory::getObject(string label,vector<string> paramaters)
{
PtrMethod method = theMap[label];
Object * object = (*method)(parameters);
return energia;
}
is it correct? what do you think?
Close, but incorrect. If your 'method1' and 'method2' return Object*,
you cannot declare 'PtrMethod' as returning "void". You have to make
sure the type is the same as the functions. That's the glaring error.
Then 'Factory::getObject' returns 'energia' where it should probably
return 'object'.
Not so important ones include passing by value where passing by const
reference should be sufficient.
V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
Oh, you are rigth. I had an error: "PtrMethod" return "Object *" and
"Factory::getObject" returns a Object*. I'm mistaken when copying the
and too, you are rigth with passing by value or by const reference. I