Search Results

Search found 2 results on 1 pages for 'rhapsodyn'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Questions about "casting operation" in OOP

  - by rhapsodyn

  When programming, we usually use some type-casting operations. When the casting happens on the objects "on the same level", it feels ok. But when it happens on the ojects "on the different levels"(mainly between father and son), it feels weird. Considering this: Class Son extends Father WhenSon s = (Son)father;, it's absolutely unreasonable. Because a "Son" is not a "Father" anymore, "Son" may grow up with some new properties "Father" doesn't have, the casting operation makes these properties unknown. On the other hand, Father f = (Father)son seems reasonable, but according to LSP "An instance of a derived should be able to replace any instance of its superclass" A "Son" can do anything his "Father" can, so the casting operation seems useless. So can i say that these casting operations are agaisnt OO design principle but necessary?

  Read the article

• How to manage member variable in C++

  - by rhapsodyn

  In brief, my question is about member variables as pointers in unmanaged C++. In java or c#, we have "advanced pointer". In fact, we can't aware the "pointer" in them. We usually initialize the member of a class like this: member = new Member(); or member = null; But in c++, it becomes more confusing. I have seen many styles: using new, or leave the member variable in stack. In my point of view, using boost::shared_ptr seems friendly, but in boost itself source code there are news everywhere. It's the matter of efficiency,isn't it? Is there a guildline like "try your best to avoid new" or something?

  Read the article

1