Author: Bo Persson
Date: 14:42:28 09/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2003 at 13:45:03, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>You are going to have a hard time convincing me that
I'm not trying to, I just like it much better myself.
>
>class a
>{
>public:
> foo1();
> foo2();
I would of course also have some data here
private:
piece moved_piece;
square from;
square to;
>};
>
>is better than:
>
>struct a;
>
>foo1(a*, ...);
>foo2(a*, ...);
>
>etc.
One obvious problem is that anyone can write
void garble(a*, ...);
that messes with the data. In the C++ case, this is not allowed.
With a struct, someone (anyone!) can also write
a_value.from = a7;
and destroy the abstraction. Of course you would never do that, not even by
mistake...
>
>To me these are the same. If you prefer the C++ syntax, that is of course your
>option, of course.
It's not just the syntax, it is also the added abstraction of a being a value
type, not just a parameter that you pass around all the time.
Bo Persson
>
>anthony
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.