Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 14:53:47 08/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2004 at 14:22:50, Volker Böhm wrote: >On August 11, 2004 at 03:21:53, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On August 10, 2004 at 13:22:55, Volker Böhm wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>>>1. A "Const" Class holding only constants that do not need memory (no const >>>>>fields). Nearly every class is derived from the const class giving it the >>>>>opportunity to access all relevant constant values. >> >>Just noticing this now: you _derive_ from that const class? That sounds like the >>wrong concept to me in this case. Why not simply include its headerfile and use >>access the const values this way? >> >>Sargon > >Why is the concept wrong? Both solutions are nearly identical. There are always special cases, but the general rule I use when deciding between composition and inheritance is this. Is A a B? If yes, I consider A being a subclass of B. Otherwise not. Example: An apple is a fruit, therefore it makes sense for me if class Apple derives from class Fruit. (although I still might choose using composition for other reasons) Your example more sounds like class XYZ merely _uses_ the Const Class. Class XYZ is not A Const. But then, classes which only provide static stuff are special anyway. Your Const class sounds like it could simply be a namespace. Sargon
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.