Re: HashTable specialization

[Christian Reiniger <warewolf@mayn.de>]

Bjarke Hammersholt Roune wrote:

>> which it gets from the virtual factory methods
>> FileHashTable *Directory::CreateFileTable ();
>> DirHashTable  *Directory::CreateDirTable  ():
>>
>Why do we need these? We already have virtual serialization methods and the
>constructor will, of course, be aware of what class it belongs to. So when
>will code in Directory need to create a HashTable derivate?

Ok, the above was based on the assumption that HashTable sould be able to
properly serialize itself to a wide variety of file formats. Which we
proved bad in the other mail. So it largely collapses into a little funny
grey heap :)

At least partially. I still think that the MISC thing should not be a
template parameter but either a bunch of virtual functions or (perhaps
better) some object passed via the constructor.

>> What do you think? Is there again something I didn't see? ;)
>>
>I changed my mind (in the other E-mail I say this is a bad idea). I think
>this should work perfectly.

Uh-oh...
You changed your mind? And above I said...
Hmmm. Now what do I actually think ?-(

Er, hrrm, I'll resolve that tomorrow. Now it's bedtime ;+)


	Christian
-- 

Drive A: not responding...Formatting C: instead