Re: Aggregation vs composition
From: Matthias Hofmann (hofmann_at_anvil-soft.com)
Date: 04/27/04
- Next message: Matthias Hofmann: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Previous message: Matthias Hofmann: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- In reply to: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Next in thread: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Reply: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:28:03 +0200
Ilja Preuß <preuss@disy.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
c6luus$549$1@stu1id2.ip.tesion.net...
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > "Ilja Preuß" <preuss@disy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Now I realize the above is only true in GC languages, in C++, A can
> > explicitly destroy a B object at any moment, the other clients of
> > that B object be damned. (Of course this applies to every client of
> > that B object.)
>
> Correct. In C++, it would be the responsibility of C to call the
destructor
> (or to give lifetime responsibility to someone else).
I guess you mean that A is responsible for calling the destructor, not C.
> > Second, A's ability to make such
> > imperious demands on objects that it doesn't have responsibility for
> > (namely other clients of B,) smacks of god class problems and IMO is
> > irresponsible.
>
> I don't follow you - what imperious demands are you talking about???
I think he means the imperious demand of requiring C to be able to cope with
the situation of B going up in smoke whenever A wants this to happen.
Regards,
Matthias
- Next message: Matthias Hofmann: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Previous message: Matthias Hofmann: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- In reply to: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Next in thread: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Reply: Ilja Preuß: "Re: Aggregation vs composition"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|