On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote: > there are a number of places where we use function pointers, which seems > like a pretty C-ish way to do a lot of things.
C-ish, but sometimes preferable to the common C++ virtual function alternative, because composition and replacement is a little harder with virtual functions. In hindsight I wish I'd put the FEMSystem assembly functions into a separate FEMPhysics class, for example. > What if instead we declare a virtual function > ExactSolution::exact_value(...) with the same interface as the function > pointer. The default behavior would the then to just call the function > pointer inside the exact_value() method, but as an alternative the user > could instead override exact_value() in a derived class? > > I'm thinking about this not so much from the perspective of ExactSolution, > but rather from MaufacturedSolution, which I intend to derive from > ExactSolution... What are the advantages of a virtual function here? Just the implicit *this argument? Would it be sufficient to use a functor class instead? --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Join us December 9, 2009 for the Red Hat Virtual Experience, a free event focused on virtualization and cloud computing. Attend in-depth sessions from your desk. Your couch. Anywhere. http://p.sf.net/sfu/redhat-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
