Timeline for Implementing a "state-machine" logic for methods required by an object in C++
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2012 at 19:53 | vote | accept | user827992 | ||
| Jun 23, 2012 at 15:51 | comment | added | Ben Cottrell | You don't need to write template code in order to use the C++ standard libraries, nor do you have to change anything about the organisation of your code to use containers such as std::deque or std::map. I'm not sure where you got the idea from that you won't be able to separate your interface from implementation. | |
| Jun 23, 2012 at 15:38 | comment | added | user827992 | As generic idea my reference is a node-editor, something like the ones used in many 3D-related software. The problem regarding the templates is due to the fact that i want to separate the interfaces from the actual definition and implementation. | |
| Jun 23, 2012 at 15:21 | comment | added | Ben Cottrell | I'm afraid I don't really understand the comment. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit in your original question with a more complete explanation of what you're actually doing? i.e. why do you care about pointers? Also, what 'impact' on the organisation of your code are you referring to? | |
| Jun 23, 2012 at 14:23 | comment | added | user827992 | I'm thinking a lot about pointers, in my view the state of the machine is an answer to the question "Is that pointer containing the address of the method or is NULL?", in fact my first approach was about a multidimensional array of pointers basically, but it would be much worst than a list in my case. I also want to avoid the use of the templates in C++ because this impact on the organization of my source code, especially when dividing the header from the actual implementation. I'm actually reading something about what you suggest from the std:: world, i'm posting something later. | |
| Jun 23, 2012 at 6:56 | history | answered | Ben Cottrell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |