Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 05:47:55 11/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2002 at 08:21:21, Sune Fischer wrote:
>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.
OK, that's fine, for pragmatic reasons...
I don't want to be a wisenheimer :-)
Cheers,
Gerd
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.