John Darrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 11:15:33AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > Please create a "struct casefile_class" and move the function pointers > in "struct casefile" into it. This better abstracts the casefile > implementations and saves time and memory because only a single > pointer needs to be set when creating a casefile. (This is like the > way the output drivers work.) > > OK. It's not quite that simple, because different subclasses will > have different implementations. But I can do that.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate? (Perhaps this will clear up your answer to the following comment as well.) > Currently the patch hard-codes the places that use a casefile to use a > fastfile. They should really, in most cases at all, produce the kind > of file that the UI wants. We need some mechanism for that. Perhaps > procedure.c (or the UI?) should supply a function that creates and > returns the "preferred" kind of casefile. > > I believe this is what the textbooks call an "abstract factory". It > may be a good idea to have, but it can be done as a seperate exercise > I think. Yes, it can, and if you want to wait until we really know what we want that's fine with me. (I'm aware of the various "Design Patterns" definitions but I don't usually think in terms of them, for what it's worth.) > Did you have any thoughts on my questions regarding the sleep, > to_disk, in_core and read_mode functions? I don't think I saw the questions. Where can I find them? -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
