Re: Lahman, how ya doing?

In article <d5om25$ic5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Andrew McDonagh <news@xxxxxx> wrote:
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> In article <d5m6lr$q9e$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Andrew McDonagh <news@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>snipped
>
>>>one over the other, simply implies what default visibility you want.
>>>
>>>In the case of the Class code above, whilst the EventElement is created
>>>with three parameters, only tick_count is accessible to other objects,
>>>as its the only member var with a get() method.
>>>
>>>In this case, the use of a Class (and actually the use of the 'private:'
>>>is ensuring encapsulation - all members are private.
>>>
>>>So, is it better than a const struct? I'd say in this example yes,
>>>simply because we don't want to expose the other two member vars.
>>>
>>>Your Mileage may vary.
>>
>>
>> Towards the end of my recent message to Lahman I posed a problem where I
>> want to tell an object of one class to get data from an object of another
>> class sometimes from one member function and sometimes from another member
>> function. Except there's no easy way I know of to use a pointer to a
>> member function, so I'd thought of using public variables as an interface.
>> That seems related to what you'd just said above. Any comments on my new
>> shenanigan?
>>
>
>:-)
>
>I've just started reading your thread on comp.lang.c++ but didn't
>register it was your posting.
>
>it looks like Karl has shown you how to achieve what you want using
>C++'s idiom of function pointers.
>
>Personal (and YMMV) I find mixing programming paradigms within an
>application, 'iffy'.
>
>I'd naturally go for an OOP approach to achieve the same aim.
>
>Let me finish reading you post to Lahman and on comp.l.c++ and I'll try
>and show you how I'd approach it.
>
>Andrew


It's a small cyberworld. I just got Karl's kind example but haven't had a
chance to play with it yet. But that might be exactly what I'm looking
for. I just need some time to push some bits around to see if I
understand it.


--
"The main, if not the only, function of the word aether has been to
furnish a nominative case to the verb 'to undulate'."
-- the Earl of Salisbury, 1894
.