struct sObjectDef
{
sBitmaps *m_pBmps; // dynamic array of bitmap structs.
Uint8 m_nBmps; // the amount of bitmap structs of the above array.
sSequence *m_pSeqs; // dynamic array of sequence structs.
Uint8 m_nSeqs; // the amount of sequence structs of the above array.
};
class CObjectDef
{
public:
CObjectDef(char *nameID);
std::string m_strNameID;
std::vector<CBitmaps *> m_vecBmps;
std::vector<CSequence *> m_vecSeqs;
};
Quote:
When should one use struct's or classes?
Quote:
When should one use std::vector's or dynamic arrays?
Quote:
And one more thing should I have the constructor/function parameters char *pointer, std::string or std::string& reference. How is the most valid C++ coding manner way of doing it?
Quote:
Original post by programering
When should one use structs or classes?
Quote:When should one use std::vector's or dynamic arrays?
Quote:should I have the constructor/function parameters char *pointer, std::string or std::string& reference.
Quote:Original post by programering
What do you think, shall I use struct or class as definition? What would be most valid the C++ standard?
Quote:Original post by rip-off
If you just want an answer I would say use 'class', because privacy is a good thing.
class CObjectDef{public: CObjectDef(char *nameID); std::string m_strNameID; std::vector<CBitmaps *> m_vecBmps; std::vector<CSequence *> m_vecSeqs;};class CObject{public: CObject(int x, int y, Uint8 def); void Update(void); void Draw(short x, short y);private: Uint8 m_dir; sPosition m_pos; CBitmap *m_pBmp;};
// This is a bit subjective, but I'd argue that there's no reason// to prefix your class names with 'C'.class CObjectDef{public: // I'd make this argument a std::string (constant reference, of course), // rather than a char*. That way you can submit either a char* or a // string object. CObjectDef(char *nameID); // There's no need to encode the variable type in the name. For example, // this should just be m_nameID, not m_strNameID. std::string m_strNameID; // That's especially true here, since you might choose to change the // container type at a later date (e.g. to a list). These should really // just be m_bmps and m_seqs (or better yet, m_bitmaps and m_sequences). // Also, this is a good place to use typedefs, e.g.: // typedef std::vector<CBitmaps *> bitmaps_t; // bitmaps_t m_bitmaps; // Finally, these containers should probably store smart pointers rather // than raw pointers, but we won't go into that here. std::vector<CBitmaps *> m_vecBmps; std::vector<CSequence *> m_vecSeqs;};class CObject{public: CObject(int x, int y, Uint8 def); // In C++ we typically don't use 'void' to indicate an empty argument // list; just leave the parentheses empty (e.g. void Update()). void Update(void); void Draw(short x, short y);private: // Is Uint8 from SDL? For portability purposes I'd just use an int, // or, if you really want a particular number of bits, use a typedef // from the Boost 'stdint' header (can't remember exactly what it's // called). Uint8 m_dir; sPosition m_pos; CBitmap *m_pBmp;};Quote:Original post by programering
You know the things about why you have definitions right?
Quote:With vectors and then I can have it in class'es.
So I don't know if I should have the object definitions as struct's or if everything
in pure C++ shall be classes.
Quote:When should one use struct's or classes?
Quote:When should one use std::vector's or dynamic arrays?
Quote:And one more thing should I have the constructor/function parameters char *pointer, std::string or std::string& reference.
Quote:How is the most valid C++ coding manner way of doing it?
Quote:Original post by shotgunnutterI'm interpreting 'pure' as meaning 'idiomatic' in the context of the OP's post. But, I could be wrong in that interpretation...
It sounds like you are striving for the One True Method of programming C++. pure? its "pure" if your not using any other languages inside the code. (no including cstdio, you must use std, and so on) Valid? if it compiles its valid. No warning allowed.
Thats it, really.
