Re: [Ctool-develop] using ctool as a library

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Steven Singer wrote:
 > Stefan Seefeld wrote:
 >  >   virtual void traverse_base(BaseType *) = 0;
 >  >   virtual void traverse_ptr(PtrType *) = 0;
 >  >   virtual void traverse_array(ArrayType *) = 0;
 >  >   virtual void traverse_bit_field(BitFieldType *) = 0;
 > [etc.]
 >
 > Can I ask why all the functions have different names? Wouldn't it be
 > more natural to give them all the same name and then overload on the
 > argument type?

mainly a matter of taste I guess. It's easier to distinguish. The single
most important point is if you derive a new Traversal. If you use the 
same name for all methods, you have to redefine all of them (or specify
'using Base::traverse') or the compiler will complain. You may want to
read about variations on this theme (and others) in John Vlissides'
excellent book 'Pattern Hatching'.

 > If they all have the same name then instead of calling it traverse,
 > it could be operator(). Accept code could then look like:

yes it could. But I find it much clearer to spell out what it is doing.
I find 'operator ()' a little too compact.

 > I suspect a reference to a Traversal is more helpful than a pointer
 > as references can't be NULL and there's no need to rebind t partway
 > through a function.

true. It's just lazyness as then you have to pass '*this' instead of
'this'. :-)

Regards,
		Stefan