From: John Femiani (JOHN.FEMIANI_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-08 18:31:09
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> On Behalf Of Simonson, Lucanus J
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [GTL] - geometric template library -
> Marco wrote:
> >If I can ask, why do you preferred subclassing instead of
> >Could 'b' be a member of 'a' instead?
> >Perhaps to access protected members of class b otherwise
> >In another part of your thread you say inerithance is public just
> >because of a limitation in MS compiler, so your intention would be to
> >use private inerithance, so you don't think at 'a' as is 'b' but in
> >implemented in terms of 'b', is this correct?
> This is the kind of question I wanted asked. Gyuszi suggested
> composition early on. I don't really have a good rationale for
> inheritance over composition. At the time, private inheritance was
> working fine in gcc 4.2.0 and I was able to make the design pattern
> using inheritance from the template parameter do everything I wanted.
> didn't need to access protected members of b. You are correct that I
> could have made the design pattern work equally well, perhaps better,
> using composition instead of inheritance. All that I need is for a to
> be able to safely cast to b and visa-versa. I specifically made this
> type of code change easy to make by abstracting away the mechanism for
> accessing the data, but what benefit would I get from changing the
> design pattern to use composition instead of inheritance? It just
> clear to me what it is about inheritance that is objectionable in this
> case. Perhaps this is a learning opportunity for me.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
I remember reading somewhere that sometimes inheritance can be a trick
produce smaller type than composition in some cases.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk