Re: References
Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> writes:
Ok very good now is more clear...
Which brings me to the next question.
Suppose I have the situation above, and the Packer also keeps an
alternative representation of the object.
There are basically two different approaches. Decide who's in charge:
either the Packer notifies the Packet that the value has changed, or
the Packet can ask the Packer whether the value has changed.
Continuing the silly example
class Packer
{
public:
Packer(int& _x) : x(_x), dirty(true) {}
int& x;
bool dirty;
void packData(char *) {
if (dirty)
// do something
dirty = false;
}
};
class Packet
{
public:
int x;
Packer p;
void setX(int _x) {
x = _x;
p.dirty = true;
}
Packet(int _x) : x(_x), p(x) {}
};
int main() {
Packet p1(10);
cout << p1.p.x << endl;
p1.setX(3);
cout << p1.p.x << endl;
return 0;
}
this I get might work, the only annoying part is to have to set the
dirty bit every time I change something manually.
My questions was if there is something even more immediate.
And actually maybe it's better the other way around, having MORE classes
using the same referneces maybe it's best to ASK to Packet if something
is changed.