Difference between revisions of "Talk:TODO"

From ScummVM :: Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(some small notes about my comment on the idea of introducing a Common::File::clone)
m (language)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Speaking of: "Get rid of the incRef/decRef API of class File. Instead, add a clone() method which generates a new (independant) File object for the same file (only would work for files in read mode, obviously)." - Wouldn't it be nicer to make the copy constructor and the operator = of Common::File public and making them doing a clone of the file? Since it wouldn't be possible to implement a Common::File clone() like method until those are protected. If the copy constructor and operator = would be doing the same like clone there would be no need for clone again, but if those don't do the same like clone it would be unsafe for code like: "void foo(Common::File bar);" -- [[User:LordHoto|LordHoto]] 4:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 
Speaking of: "Get rid of the incRef/decRef API of class File. Instead, add a clone() method which generates a new (independant) File object for the same file (only would work for files in read mode, obviously)." - Wouldn't it be nicer to make the copy constructor and the operator = of Common::File public and making them doing a clone of the file? Since it wouldn't be possible to implement a Common::File clone() like method until those are protected. If the copy constructor and operator = would be doing the same like clone there would be no need for clone again, but if those don't do the same like clone it would be unsafe for code like: "void foo(Common::File bar);" -- [[User:LordHoto|LordHoto]] 4:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  
:Just thought about an Common::File* as return value, but I don't like it to have to clean up with delete after a Common::File::clone call, I would prefer a special copy constructor and operator = -- [[User:LordHoto|LordHoto]] 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
+
:Just thought about an Common::File* as return value, but I don't like it to have to clean up with delete after a Common::File::clone call, I would prefer a custom copy constructor and operator = -- [[User:LordHoto|LordHoto]] 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:03, 27 August 2006

Speaking of: "Get rid of the incRef/decRef API of class File. Instead, add a clone() method which generates a new (independant) File object for the same file (only would work for files in read mode, obviously)." - Wouldn't it be nicer to make the copy constructor and the operator = of Common::File public and making them doing a clone of the file? Since it wouldn't be possible to implement a Common::File clone() like method until those are protected. If the copy constructor and operator = would be doing the same like clone there would be no need for clone again, but if those don't do the same like clone it would be unsafe for code like: "void foo(Common::File bar);" -- LordHoto 4:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought about an Common::File* as return value, but I don't like it to have to clean up with delete after a Common::File::clone call, I would prefer a custom copy constructor and operator = -- LordHoto 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)