Re^5: An object replacing itself

It is better design. You've separated your concerns when you keep your collection separate from the thing the collection contains. This is a bit like a box that contains other boxes that also contains itself. The primary thing here is to keep the collection object separate from your contained object. Or also, to keep the container out of the things that it contains. You might, if you wished, provide a method on your collection which could do the ->next operation for you.

Comment on Re^5: An object replacing itself

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: An object replacing itself by ryantate (Friar) on Sep 23, 2004 at 21:53 UTC
None of my objects contains a reference to itself. One object contains a reference to the objects that come after it in a collection. When the next object is loaded, the list is shortened by one and transferred over.	[reply]
Re^7: An object replacing itself by diotalevi (Canon) on Sep 23, 2004 at 22:11 UTC
That still makes the object a container object. They should only be there if they are intrinsic to the object. If they don't belong to it, they shouldn't be in its possession.	[reply]
Re^8: An object replacing itself by ryantate (Friar) on Sep 23, 2004 at 22:21 UTC
... in your opinion ;-> I see what you're saying, I have to think about whether I agree. I don't think it's nearly as clear cut as to be objectively called "better," but maybe I'll change my mind :-] Thanks again.	[reply]