Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!ads.com!potomac!adiseker
From: adiseker@potomac.ads.com (Andrew Diseker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Problems in ThinkC mixing direct and indirect objects
Keywords: direct indirect class definitions address error
Message-ID: <9200@potomac.ads.com>
Date: 26 Sep 90 19:30:12 GMT
Reply-To: adiseker@potomac.ads.com (Andrew Diseker)
Distribution: na
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Arlington VA
Lines: 27


	I have just had a problem in using an instance of a direct object
in the method of an indirect object.  This is part of the method code:

void  IndirectObj::aMethod()
{
   DirectObj  *tempObj;
       :
   tempObj = new( DirectObj );
   tempObj->someMethod(); <<< the debugger stops here with "odd address trap"
       :
   delete( tempObj );
}

   where someMethod() is declared and defined in the DirectObj class 
definition and code.  I changed DirectObj's definition from direct to 
indirect, and had no further problems.  Shouldn't I be allowed to mix 
types?  I do kind of like to have the choice. For example, if tempObj is 
small, and nothing I do to it will move memory, I want to eliminate the 
overhead involved with dereferencing handles.


-- 
Andrew Diseker   >Advanced Decision Systems   >UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!adiseker
>Internet:adiseker@potomac.ads.com  "Indeed, many respected computer scientists
have difficulty with left and right even though they can manage the logical con-
nectives and can be left to write left to right the right Boolean operations"