From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-30 14:30:05
Reece Dunn wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Yeah, geez. Single-rooted hierarchies of diverse functionality with a
>> root class called "object" were discredited long ago, weren't they?
> I am not suggesting a single-rooted heirarchy for *all* the classes as
> that would be stupid. MFC does it to support their own version of RTTI,
> memory leak tracking, etc. Java does it because it doesn't have
> templates. .NET has it because it treats every object as a COM object.
Python does it too. It's not neccessarily wrong for other languages;
> The heirarchy above is for a UI object, where a UI object has
> moving/positioning and event handling integral to it. Consider:
> How do you intend on writing *UI objects* - frames, widgets, layout
> managers, etc. - that can interact with each other, be moved and process
> events correctly without sharing a common *ui::object* base? Here, I was
> using the namespace as part of the name to denote the role that the
> class plays, not that it is a monolithic uberclass.
A layout manager that can be moved?? Maybe you have something else in
mind, but I understand a layout manager to be a supplier of logic with
no graphical representation.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk