So I want to create a tree with two different types of nodes, the internal nodes have pointers to further nodes, while the leaf nodes simply have elements. In Pascal, you can define a type with one element being a nodetype which can be defined to be either a leaf or an internal node. Then there is a case statement to decide what members are available for that node type. Is this possible in C++ classes or Structs, or something?
You could have a base class and make internal_node and leaf derived classes. Or you can just have a node class that can be either, and use some sort of indicator to tell which one the current node is.
I think I will go with the indicator, thank you
In fact the indicator is very simple -- if you're using a std::vector< Node * > (or std::deque, std::list, etc. ) as your list of child nodes, you just check to see if the vector is empty or not. Empty = leaf, non-empty = internal node.
Note if you use pointers inside STL containers you *must* be careful to call delete on every pointer when you remove it from the vector. One option would be to wrap the pointers inside, say, a boost::shared_ptr and then put that into your vector.
You ever try a pink golf ball, Wally? Why, the wind shear on a pink ball alone can take the head clean off a 90 pound midget at 300 yards.
Maybe a scoped_ptr. There's no need for sharing of ownership, I reckon
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
STL containers require that the elements they contain be copyable. Internally, STL implementations are permitted to make as many copies of an element as they choose.Originally Posted by Mario F.
You ever try a pink golf ball, Wally? Why, the wind shear on a pink ball alone can take the head clean off a 90 pound midget at 300 yards.
Ah. Gotcha!
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
But a ptr_vector might be a good idea. Cheaper than the shared_ptr.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
