Reputation
816
Next privilege 1,000 Rep.
See votes, expandable usercard
Badges
5 7
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~40k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 5 votes cast
Jun
18
comment Is a new build required everytime I make a change to the code?
@Aaditya: No, make clean deletes everything that's built, typically because you explicitly want to do a full rebuild. Try to build, edit a file and then just run make.
Jun
18
comment Is a new build required everytime I make a change to the code?
Did you try changing a file and building? MSVC will build what's needed, no more.
Feb
15
comment designing classes with similar goal but widely different decisional core
@Steven Jeuris: I completely agree on the indication of wrong abstraction, and I wouldn't choose this as a design. My answer is more focused on the "redesign" context, where my primary goal would be to make an existing design extensible without breaking anything or requiring large amounts of changes. I think we're basically agreeing on how this can/should be solved, but answer based on different primary goals.
Feb
15
comment designing classes with similar goal but widely different decisional core
@Steven Jeuris: On the topic of shared state, this is IMO an acceptable tradeoff, as it is both easy to detect when the expected state is not provided to the P4 class, and there's a single rarely changing point (the primary loop) where you need to ensure that the state is passed to PBase subclasses.
Feb
15
comment designing classes with similar goal but widely different decisional core
@Steven Jeuris:Making such functions pure virtual would require changing all PBase subclasses, which I'd want to avoid. Sure, for 4 concrete classes, who cares, but for a more complex scenario with e.g. a few hundred subclasses, avoiding changes to all classes due to the requirements of one new subclass would be preferable. The "Context" mechanism mentioned below and the method I describe allow changing requirements with minimum modification of existing code.