niklas@appli.se (Niklas Hallqvist) (04/14/91)
chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes: >And yes, I think closures are a good idea. I have no special sympathy >for existing code that uses pointers to member functions; first, I've >never come across such code, and second, it wouldn't be the first time >that a change to the language broke existing code. I'm certain that >I'd have more use for this than for (say) multiple inheritance (why >so? because I've needed to use this a couple of times already and >simulated it clumsily, and because I haven't ever used multiple >inheritance, even though it is already in the language.) Yes, I also think closures are a good idea, but what I want to comment on, is your other statements made in this paragraph. I think pointers to members are usable when implementing storable composite objects. I've done a hack using MI where every class that should be storeable inherits from a base class "Tagged" which implements the functions store & fetch. Essentially these functions parses a class static table of Tagged::* and stores/fetch them from a file and/or stream. Well, there's more to it than that of course, in order to be able to store/fetch arbitary object graphs. This way, only the table need to be set up in collection classes. Primitive classes must of course implement an actual_store/ actual_fetch member to store/fetch its state. Niklas -- Niklas Hallqvist Phone: +46-(0)31-40 75 00 Applitron Datasystem Fax: +46-(0)31-83 39 50 Molndalsvagen 95 Email: niklas@appli.se S-412 63 GOTEBORG, Sweden mcsun!sunic!chalmers!appli!niklas