Quote:Original post by TANSTAAFL
I'd go the other way, and map strings to directionids, not the other way around.

*** Source Snippet Removed ***

Note: you'll need to either come up with a case insensitive string compare, or else ensure that your strings are first converted to the proper case.

Quote:Original post by Servant of the Lord
Thanks. That seems rather chunky for what seems like a simple thing. Someone should create a varation of switch which acepts most variables.

class DirectionAction {  virtual void operator()();};class NorthAction : public DirectionAction {  void operator()() {    // insert logic for going north here.  }};// etc.// HOWEVER, do note that because these are *objects*, you can instantiate them// several times, and also give them member data. If the logic for going in any// given direction is effectively the same, then you might just use one class,// with a "direction" data member that is initialized by a constructor and// consulted by the operator()().std::map<std::string, DirectionAction*> mapping;// If you can avoid inheritance altogether by the above technique, then you// can store plain objects here and avoid the memory management headache.mapping["North"] = new NorthAction();// etc.std::map<Direction, std::string>::iterator it = stringMap.find(input);if (it != stringMap.end()) {  (*it->second)();}// That is, dereference the iterator to get a key/value pair, select the value// (which is a DirectionObject*), dereference the pointer to get the object,// and "call the object" (invoke its operator()()). Look ma, no switch.

Quote:Original post by TANSTAAFL
I'd go the other way, and map strings to directionids, not the other way around.

*** Source Snippet Removed ***

Note: you'll need to either come up with a case insensitive string compare, or else ensure that your strings are first converted to the proper case.