home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh
- From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
- Subject: Re: Alternatives to operator.()
- Message-ID: <9220719.1283@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU
- Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
- References: <BruME9.HGJ@world.std.com> <9220604.6372@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <9220614.4939@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1992Jul24.190321.5671@kodak.kodak.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 09:55:03 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- cok@sunshine.Kodak.COM (David Cok) writes:
-
- >In article <9220614.4939@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
- >>
- >>The more I think about this the more I like it.
- >>In fact I would say that is is *better* than just allowing
- >> r.invalidate_cache();
- >>since you *want* meta-operations to stand out as being semantically different
- >>to standard operations. This method allows you to clearly seperate the two.
- >>Also in general you might want to control access to meta-operations, and
- >>having this seperation also makes that easier.
- >
- >No, I don't want meta-operations to stand out. I want to be able to design
- >interfaces in which construction, copying, destruction, conversion all happen
- >silently and automatically where the interface designs them to. The same
- >would apply to operator. if it were allowed to be overloaded.
-
- But these operations *would* be silent and automatic for the SmartRef
- class I was thinking of. It's only meta-operations like invalidate_cache()
- that would stand out. (Maybe I don't understand what you mean?)
-
- --
- Fergus Henderson fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU
- This .signature VIRUS is a self-referential statement that is true - but
- you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
- .signature file!
-