Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is there an overhead in this OO design ?

Author: Tony Werten

Date: 10:41:06 01/06/06

Go up one level in this thread


On January 06, 2006 at 11:54:27, Gerd Isenberg wrote:

>>>But doesn't hiding the implementation for this scalar wrapper class - without
>>>any virtuals - also imply that it don't cares whether a public interface is used
>>>internally but also privat members?
>>
>>Sorry Gerd, I don't quite understand your question.
>>Can you try to rephrase it?
>>
>>Best,
>>Alex
>
>If isAdjacent is a const member or friend, it has read access to
>private/proteceted members - but is not forced to do so - it may also use the
>public interface only. If so, should that be a reason to make the function not
>member or friend?
>
>Making a function a member of a class or not - should imho not only depend on
>its access rights, but also on the semantic and logical relations of the
>function.
>
>I mean with some point and rectangle classes - i found it so far somehow natural
>or at least familiar to have the boolean isPointInRect as member of a rectangle.

Hmm, it seems I have different thoughts. I agree with the above. isPointInRect
could be a member of CRectangle, but not of CPoint.

By the same reasoning, a CSquare should not have an IsAdjacent, but a CBoard
(containing CSquares) should.

Cheers,

Tony



>
>May be my autodidactical oo-knowledge needs some lifting ;-)
>
>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.