And you specify that by....

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #265,060 by tuberculosis 8/16/06 11:48:14 AM Reply	And you specify that by.... the type of the reference to the object. Which can change. Which kind of makes it the anti-polymorphism. But I think Scott is right. 'nuff said. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #265,069 by jb4 8/16/06 12:32:21 PM Reply	We'll leave it at that. But it's important to be clear (and not sarcastic) when trying to inform a newbie. YMMV.... jb4 "So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't." — Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06
Post #265,080 by tuberculosis 8/16/06 1:27:58 PM Reply	I wasn't trying to be sarcastic But I know of no allegedly OO language where the method implementation lookup depends on the type of the reference you hold. It runs counter to how polymorphism is supposed to work in which the object responds based on the type of the object and not the type of the reference. So in that respect, C++ is just weird in OO world (and thus, counterintuitive). Gotta warn the newbies. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #265,081 by JayMehaffey 8/16/06 1:35:32 PM Reply	No need to specify OO in this case So in that respect, C++ is just weird in OO world (and thus, counterintuitive). That sentence stands on it's own with 'in OO world' removed. Jay
Post #265,090 by jb4 8/16/06 3:06:42 PM Reply	What does the type of the reference have to do with anything The type of reference to the object is effectively the type of the object. There is no difference between having a const reference to an object in C++ and having a const object. jb4 "So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't." — Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06

C++ question on const - (ChrisR) - (24) - Aug. 14, 2006, 10:10:50 AM EDT

Don't change the object, I believe - (JayMehaffey) - (2) - Aug. 14, 2006, 11:05:16 AM EDT

Doh. - (ChrisR) - (1) - Aug. 15, 2006, 12:27:00 PM EDT

More than that... - (jb4) - Aug. 15, 2006, 04:05:02 PM EDT

Re: C++ question on const - (tuberculosis) - (20) - Aug. 14, 2006, 11:22:39 PM EDT

I still don't understand... - (ChrisR) - (19) - Aug. 15, 2006, 10:59:52 AM EDT

Const is not always forced - (JayMehaffey) - Aug. 15, 2006, 11:23:16 AM EDT

Its counterintuitive - (tuberculosis) - (14) - Aug. 15, 2006, 01:03:04 PM EDT

Say WHAT?!? - (jb4) - (13) - Aug. 15, 2006, 04:30:02 PM EDT

You can overload on const - (tuberculosis) - (11) - Aug. 15, 2006, 04:47:41 PM EDT

Why the hell would it do / allow that? - (drewk) - (1) - Aug. 15, 2006, 04:45:34 PM EDT

Bell labs has an unlimited crack budget - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 15, 2006, 04:57:05 PM EDT

The easiness to keep track of is not the issue - (jb4) - (8) - Aug. 15, 2006, 05:49:16 PM EDT

Huh? - (tuberculosis) - (7) - Aug. 15, 2006, 06:51:19 PM EDT

No... - (jb4) - (6) - Aug. 16, 2006, 10:12:37 AM EDT

I think you're talking past each other... - (admin) - Aug. 16, 2006, 11:11:53 AM EDT

And you specify that by.... - (tuberculosis) - (4) - Aug. 16, 2006, 11:48:14 AM EDT

We'll leave it at that. - (jb4) - (3) - Aug. 16, 2006, 12:32:21 PM EDT

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Aug. 16, 2006, 01:27:58 PM EDT

No need to specify OO in this case - (JayMehaffey) - Aug. 16, 2006, 01:35:32 PM EDT

What does the type of the reference have to do with anything - (jb4) - Aug. 16, 2006, 03:06:42 PM EDT

Nominating this for LRPD (new thread) - (lincoln) - Aug. 18, 2006, 03:18:45 PM EDT

Re: I still don't understand... - (jb4) - (2) - Aug. 15, 2006, 04:16:40 PM EDT

Which brings up another question. - (ChrisR) - (1) - Aug. 15, 2006, 08:25:15 PM EDT

Pure virtual functions - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 15, 2006, 09:01:04 PM EDT

iwethey.org

Safety is our first concern! Actually, meat is our first concern, safety is second.
90 ms