Re: Re: Encapsulation through stringification - a variation on flyweight objects

I thought it would be a bit too much to have been the first to think of this <g>. I had super searched but not on 'Inside-Out objects'.

I know about the memory leak, I have not included a DESTROY method as this was just an example (the same reason I have not included any accessors, or attribute validation). It's still a valid point though.

Stringification overload is indeed problematic. One hole poked ;).

Thx for the comment.

CU
Robartes-

Comment on Re: Re: Encapsulation through stringification - a variation on flyweight objects

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Encapsulation through stringification - a variation on flyweight objects by theorbtwo (Prior) on Apr 02, 2003 at 05:12 UTC
BTW, you can overload stringification /or/ numification just fine, but not both. Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Encapsulation through stringification - a variation on flyweight objects
by theorbtwo (Prior) on Apr 02, 2003 at 05:12 UTC

BTW, you can overload stringification /or/ numification just fine, but not both.

Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

[reply]