Re: Class design with tightly bound iterator

From:

Barry <dhb2000@gmail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:19:20 +0800

Message-ID:

<fbnrjt$1dv$1@aioe.org>

Jim Langston wrote:

"Barry" <dhb2000@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fbnmo9$m3k$1@aioe.org...

Jim Langston wrote:

someinteratortype it = MyBody("right upper leg");
It should be fairly easy for PartTriangles to return an iterator pointing
to it's std::set for the beginning of the upper leg. However, it would
not actually be in the instance of MyBody, which would have the set for
Torso, but in MyBody's vector of PartTriangles where the name is "right
upper leg". Also is the complication of .end() There are 5 end()'s, one
for head, one for right hand pinky (if I go as far as fingers), left hand
pinkie, right foot, etc..

Well, to iterate YourBody is so hard.

I happened to see an STL-like tree implementation,
it has
in_begin(), in_end()
post_being(), post_end()
...
in pair by the traverse method.

So why not doing so here.

... "in pair by the traverse method..." I'm not familiar with that term,
I'll try to look it up.

Forgive my English,
it like post_order, in_order, pre_order

But, yes, it is a form of tree.

As my conceptual idea, I would say why not buy strategy pattern.

begin(Strategy1()), end(Strategy1())

Looking at the strategy design, it seems to be a form of polymorphic funcion
calls. I don't see how that will help me, unless there is some other form
of strategy pattern I'm missing.

Here, I think Design Pattern is just way of communication,
like iterator in STL can also be designed without any virtual functions.
But Strategy here, how to? No experience here, just an idea.

--
Thanks
Barry