Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:21:21 11/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2002 at 07:36:08, Gerd Isenberg wrote:
>On November 09, 2002 at 07:15:18, Sune Fischer wrote:
>
>>On November 09, 2002 at 06:03:13, Gerd Isenberg wrote:
>>>Hi Sune,
>>>
>>>you declared a function pointer but no pointer to member functions.
>>>Pointer to member function need an pointer to an object and they act like an
>>>offset. There are explicitely two new atomic operators in C++, ".*" and "->*",
>>>to call member fuctions via pointer.
>>>
>>>class BOARD {
>>>public:
>>> void (BOARD::*pGenCastleMoves)();
>>> void GenNormalCastleMoves();
>>> void GenFischerCastleMoves();
>>>...
>>>}
>>
>>Thanks, so I gather:)
>>
>>>I use arrays of function pointers a lot in this way:
>>>
>>> typedef void (CSearchTree::*PTR_DOMOVE)(CNode &node);
>>> static PTR_DOMOVE m_scDoMove[SMOVE::MK_NUMBER_OF_KINDS];
>>> __forceinline void DoMove(const CNode &fromnode, CNode &tonode) {
>>> ....
>>> (this->*m_scDoMove[tonode.m_Move2ThisNode.kind])(tonode);}
>>>
>>>For your purpose i would prefere an abstract base class with two concrete
>>>derivates, where you must overload the pure virtual GenCastleMoves routine:
>>>
>>>class BOARDBASE {
>>>public:
>>> virtual void GenCastleMoves() = 0;
>>>...
>>>}
>>
>>Well, the trick is to support different games without losing performance in the
>>primary game (chess!). I think only fischer-random requires special castling
>>rules, even shuffle chess can use ordinary rules just by removing castle rights.
>>So I think don't I will really be needing more than two such castle functions:)
>>
>>-S.
>
>Yes, but calling virtual functions has about the same overhead, than calling a
>member function via pointer.
>For design reasons i would prefere seperate board or game objects rather than
>the possibility of switching the rules during search, even if the intention is
>it to do it only once for initalization.
>
>Gerd
Oh I see, I thought the other way around, that given the games are so much
alike, they should have as much in common as possible, in the spirit of OOP.
I really didn't intend to write a whole new program, only to make full use of
what is already there.
Actually I also like to have the option to change pointers during the game, eg.
if castling is impossible, set the pointer to NULL and never bother to check for
castling flags during search :)
So I guess I disagree ;)
-S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.