Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!usc!polyslo!ttwang
From: ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Pre-computing objects
Message-ID: <1989Oct30.214745.19419@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Date: 30 Oct 89 21:47:45 GMT
References: <4671be53.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <2561@fai.UUCP>
Reply-To: ttwang@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Thomas Wang)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cal Poly State University -- San Luis Obispo
Lines: 29

kurtl@fai.fai.com (Kurt Luoto) writes:
>In article <4671be53.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> vinoski@apollo.HP.COM (Stephen Vinoski) writes:

>There are other related situations that I have run into where the
>C++ language could not provide any magic:
    
>    II. I have a particular inheritance tree of classes. A client module
>	needs to allocate storage in a particular place for an instance
>	of one of these classes. The client needs to allocate a buffer
>	large enough to hold an instance of any class in the tree. But
>	we would like to not have to burden the client code with explicit
>	knowledge about all classes.

Does not this waste some storage space, with additional to the complexity
of the design?  Why can't the client contains a 'reference' to the super-class
of all objects which it could contain?

This is the scheme usually used for system with automatic memory
management.


>Kurt W. Luoto     kurtl@fai.fai.com   or   ...!sun!fai!kurtl


 -Thomas Wang ("This is a fantastic comedy that Ataru and his wife Lum, an
                invader from space, cause excitement involving their neighbors."
                  - from a badly translated Urusei Yatsura poster)

                                                     ttwang@polyslo.calpoly.edu