CG members photo album

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoboTact

Can you imagine the process of reallocation of array of wives? Better use linked list, preferrably unidirectional.

---

Aren't you assuming that a wife isn't a POD? ;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siddhartha

Aren't you assuming that a wife isn't a POD? ;) :D

---

Sure, there's whole bunch of links to stuff, several bags at the least, with complex shared ownership issues. It's a vain try not to lose any resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoboTact

Better use linked list, preferrably unidirectional.

---

Secondly, are you sure that you want to do away with random access? :D ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siddhartha

Secondly, are you sure that you want to do away with random access? :D ;)

---

One can use vector of pointers. Much safer, and you can use garbage collector to dispose of ones you removed pointers to instead of utilizing that unfair COM principle "deal with acquired problems yourself". :evil grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoboTact

One can use vector of pointers.

---

Well... A vector of pointers may result in more people using an object that the (original) owner trusts... :D ;)

Does anyone want a "wife" object that also implements thread-synchronization to service multiple clients? :eek: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siddhartha

Well... A vector of pointers may result in more people using an object that the (original) owner trusts... :D ;)

---

Not if you mastered encapsulation.

Trusting one's encapsulation, and leaving a precious resource in the open makes for what I'd call a security flaw... :D ;)

The good thing is that you've managed to get off list and on to vector... And the rest is detail. ;)

Besides all this - one needs to post at least one photo in this thread to gain rights in discusing off-topic issues... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siddhartha

You?

Trusting one's encapsulation, and leaving a precious resource in the open makes for what I'd call a security flaw... :D ;)

Besides all this - one needs to post at least one photo in this thread to gain rights in discusing off-topic issues... ;)

---

I mean has-a relation without exposing unnecessary detailes does it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoboTact

I mean has-a relation without exposing unnecessary detailes does it.

---

Its simpler to hold by value... And if one plans to hold so many that performance lost to resizing matters - use std::vector::reserve.

However, I personally think that there ought to be no collection... The place holder for a wife is at best a singleton class. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiddHartha

Next wife?!

How many exist in your collection presently?

(Counting is simple for std::vector <wife> myWives; call myWives.size (). No, it doesn't return the physical dimension of any wife, rather only the number of them.)

---

yes, next wife 10,20,30 like clerics..:) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melvik12

yes, next wife 10,20,30 like clerics..:) ;)

---

You aren't a cleric - are you?

Besides, clerics are allowed only 5... Right?

Quote:

---

Besides, clerics are allowed only 5... Right?

---

no limit,I'm not a cleric ,I'm against them intensively ;)

And... If one is not a cleric - how many wives is one allowed to keep?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siddhartha

And... If one is not a cleric - how many wives is one allowed to keep?

---

A std::vector<ClericWife>. But the container must be private.

dpends on money and such things.....