public inbox for insight@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>
To: Keith Seitz <keiths@cygnus.com>
Cc: Insight Maling List <insight@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Overloaded vs variable?
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:15:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3AAFB497.FCACD89A@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010302093740.9412O-100000@ryobi.cygnus.com>

I guess whoever wrote it had the following in mind (I am just guessing,
I was not around at the time):

MyWin::something can perform a calculation (check something) whenever
ManagedWin::frob is invoked.

I.e., cause the test for a condition specific to a subclass whenever the
base class method is invoked.  This could not be done with a variable
because the invocation is what is determining *when* the evaluation is
done.

I have no idea where this is useful in our code.  

Also, the degenerate case (a constant value) does map to a protected
variable.  It may be more clear to test for the protected variable than
to use method overloading in that case.  I don't have any strong
feelings about it.

As far as I am concerned feel free to change it wherever it makes sense,
if it is more to your taste.

Cheers,
Fernando

Keith Seitz wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In my ongoing effort to cleanup managedwin, I've noticed a trend to do
> things like:
> 
> Class ManagedWin {
> 
>    public method something {} { return 1 }
> 
>    public method frob {} {
>      if {[something]} {
>        _frob_it
>      }
>  }
> 
> Class MyWin {
>   inherit ManagedWin
> 
>   public method something {} { return 0 }
> 
> }
> 
> This is supposed to dictate to ManagedWin not to frob MyWin. Question
> is: Why is this any better than just using a protected variable? It
> would seem to me to be a lot cleaner...
> 
> Keith

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9

      reply	other threads:[~2001-03-14 10:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-03-02  9:45 Keith Seitz
2001-03-14 10:15 ` Fernando Nasser [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3AAFB497.FCACD89A@redhat.com \
    --to=fnasser@redhat.com \
    --cc=insight@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=keiths@cygnus.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).