Re: Question about polymorphism (or so I believe)
On Jun 9, 12:39 am, Aaron <a...@daltons.ca> wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:12 pm, "Victor Bazarov" <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:
If you're looking to create a "polymorphic" container (or a container
of objects that you could use polymorphically), then you need to
store _pointers_ to the base class in that vector. If you just
store the base class objects, you will slice all the relevant parts
when trying to place the derived objects into that vector.
So this is where the whole void pointer thing comes in?
*Void* pointer? Definitely not. It has to be a pointer to the base
class.
But if the derived class has made modifications that change the amount
of memory it consumes, and I store pointers to the base class instead
of to the derived one...hrm, obviously I'm missing something. I will
implement it using pointers to the base class and wait for the library
to get that book in so I can refresh the whole pointer thing in my
head.
Thanks again.
Aaronhttp://superdupergames.org
declare the destructors as virtual and use pointers to base and do not
worry about the size:
struct position{
virtual void my_abstract()=0;// pure/abstract function
...//class stuff
virtual ~position(){/*destruction(finalizer) stuff here*/};
};
regards,
FM