Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.uucp (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Problems in ThinkC mixing direct and indirect objects
Keywords: direct indirect class definitions address error
Message-ID: <4268@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 27 Sep 90 01:50:30 GMT
References: <9200@potomac.ads.com>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Distribution: na
Organization: Symantec Language Products Group
Lines: 36

In article <9200@potomac.ads.com> adiseker@potomac.ads.com (Andrew Diseker) writes:

>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 

	When using direct classes, the responsibility for storage management
is yours - you can't use new() and delete(). You might try something like:

void IndirectObj::method()
{
	DirectObj *tmp;

	tmp = NewPtr(sizeof DirectObj);
	tmp->itsMethod();
	DisposPtr(tmp);
}

The problem does not lie in your mixing of class types; it's that you need
to allocate storage for direct classes yourself.

R.
 Rich Siegel	Software Engineer	Symantec Languages Group
 Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu	UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel

If you have telekinetic powers, raise my hand.