Heap-only objects

Started by
17 comments, last by mattnewport 19 years, 6 months ago
Quote:Original post by Jingo
True, which is another reason as to why making it only heap based is impossible.

What about having the user only able to interact with the object via an ABC without knowledge of the true type of the object, only it's base? The user can't derive from the class since it doesn't even know what the type is, since it can either be in a DLL, or a module he doesn't know about, or it could be a nested class private to another class making it innaccessible, etc.
Advertisement
Quote:Original post by Polymorphic OOP
Quote:Original post by Jingo
True, which is another reason as to why making it only heap based is impossible.

What about having the user only able to interact with the object via an ABC without knowledge of the true type of the object, only it's base? The user can't derive from the class since it doesn't even know what the type is, since it can either be in a DLL, or a module he doesn't know about, or it could be a nested class private to another class making it innaccessible, etc.


What about it?
Quote:Original post by Jingo
What about it?

I'm just saying that's one way to ensure that an object is allocated in the manner you wish. IE You generally can't choose how to allocate a COM object, since you don't even have access to the class type, only the interface type, and the allocation and deallocation is done in a separate module.
Wouldn't be portable.
Quote:Original post by Jingo
Wouldn't be portable.

True.
What do you think of haveing something like this in the baseclass constructor:

if(!_CrtIsValidHeapPointer(this)) throw 0;

?
Emil Jonssonvild
That would fail at runtime, and therefore not solve your problem.
Quote:Original post by cannonicus
This is NOT for homework. We dont event not what a heap is in my class, and i doubt thats even part of our cours.

Anyways, im working on a sidescroller lierostyle game. This heap-only class is to be used in my sprite-baseclass so that sprite classes wont be created before the main function. DirectX would in that case not have been loaded properly and the sprites, trying to create dx-surfaces, would cause errors when trying to use directx without a directx-interface.

Maybe(probably) theres another better way solve this problem, like haveing all dx-dependent code in a separate sprite function called in the main-loop instead of haveing it in the constructors. But it is always best to ask...

Feedback plz.
From your description thye problem has nothing to do with where the memory is allocated, but simply WHEN it is allocated.
If it must be allocated after DX then all you have to do is dynamically allocate it after your DX stuff. i.e. don't make the objects themselves global, instead have a global pointer to them. I don't see why it's so hard to solve, unless there's something I'm missing?
"In order to understand recursion, you must first understand recursion."
My website dedicated to sorting algorithms
Scott Meyers discusses ways of trying to make classes that can only be constructed on the stack and classes that can only be constructed on the heap in Effective C++ (or possibly More Effective C++, I'm not sure). In the end I think he concludes that it is not possible in a completely robust manner but he offers a number of partial solutions which may be 'good enough' in many situations.

I can highly recommend these two books - there's lots of useful information in them beyond the item(s) on controlling allocation.

Game Programming Blog: www.mattnewport.com/blog

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement