On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 19:48 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> > I always thought your basic data type in C should be "array of struct"
> > regardless of the actual elements you plan to use. Otherwise the
> > semantics don't make sense when you start storing things in allocated
> > or shared memory. You don't need C++ for that - it has been there
> > from the beginning.
>
> Yes but once you arrive at that concept, after a short while at least
> two other ideas arrive:
>
> - how do I manage init of these structs, allocation of malloc()-ed
> elements and free()-ing them to avoid leakage?
Carefully, of course, and in ways that let you allocate shared
memory or malloc()'ed as you choose.
> these are inherent, inescapable needs that follow from the creating of a
> valuable data-structure-and-associated-code. That's why they bothered
> to make a C++ grown out of C. They have been there and done it years
> ago, Les!
I've just always thought of data and code as very different things
and both likely to contain their own sort of flaws. If you have
a bug in a function library you may be able to work around it. How
do you deal with a flaw in a class where the only way to access
the data in an object is broken?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
