On Dec 26, 2007 9:21 PM, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 21:16 +0100, Tamas Marki wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 2007 8:52 PM, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 19:35 +0100, Tamas Marki wrote:
> > > > On Dec 26, 2007 5:41 PM, Michael Sullivan
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2007-12-26 at 17:35 +0100, Tamas Marki wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/26/07, Michael Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > In my project I have moved the majority of SDL code from the
> > > > Battle
> > > > > > > class to a new class called DrawBattle. I'm trying to build
> > it,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > DrawBattle refuses to recognize my Battle class. I know that
> > > > this
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > finished, but I prefer to debug and rebuild as I go. I have
> > > > pasted
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > code for only the relevant classes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip code]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't really read through all your code, but it seems like
> > that
> > > > you
> > > > > > are falling into the 'recursive includes' trap, meaning that
> > > > battle.h
> > > > > > includes drawbattle.h and vice versa. Just think about it for
> > a
> > > > moment
> > > > > > what would you do if you were the preprocessor... Confused
> > yet? :)
> > > > > > You might need to rethink that part a bit.
> > > > > > HTH
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Tamas Marki
> > > > >
> > > > > How else do you propose that I make my party array available to
> > > > > DrawBattle? drawbattle.h and battle.h are each included only
> > once...
> > > >
> > > > Well, if the classes _really_ need to know each other (as opposed
> > to
> > > > one knowing about the other but not vice versa), then one way to
> > do it
> > > > is with pointers. You don't need a full class declaration to
> > specify a
> > > > member that is a pointer to a given class.
> > > > Observe (simplified for readability purposes)...
> > > >
> > > > // file1.h
> > > >
> > > > class B;
> > > >
> > > > class A
> > > > {
> > > > B* bPointer;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > // file2.h
> > > >
> > > > #include "file1.h"
> > > > class B
> > > > {
> > > > A aObject;
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > But when you use the bPointer in class A's member functions you'll
> > > > need to include file2.h, but that's why you write the
> > implementation
> > > > in the .cpp file (and that's where you include file2.h) - thus
> > > > escaping the circular includes.
> > > >
> > > > Still I think it might be better to rethink your design to avoid
> > this
> > > > kind of confusion.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tamas Marki
> > >
> > > So are you saying that I should put the contents of drawbattle.h in
> > > battle.h?
> >
> > I'm not suggesting anything, since I haven't thoroughly ready your
> > source code.
> > What I do see is that your logic is not clear. I'd just create a
> > painter object that can accept a Battle object as a parameter for a
> > Draw function. That way Battle would not have to contain a drawer.
> >
> > --
> > Tamas Marki
> Battle doesn't have a drawer. It used to, but I moved it to DrawBattle.
That's irrelevant now! Your problem is that you include headers in
each other. That's not gonna work. Period.
--
Tamas Marki
