Search:

http://www.talula.demon.co.uk/allegro/
http://www.cppgameprogramming.com/cgi/nav.cgi?page=allegbasics

Allegro is easy to use (:

It works fine with me...



#include<iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>

using namespace std;

//function definitions///////////////////////////////

I'm pretty sure you're missing:


#include <stdlib.h>

You could also have changed cont from char to int if you wanted to compare it with 1.

As for the error with pointers and char I must admit that I've no idea.
I guess someone more experienced...

True.. This was the sort of reason I was looking for.




I see. I am still learning.. and these examples surely made me understand why destructors doesn't take parameters. Thanks to both of you...

you could always write it like:


} while (cont);

As this will make the while fail if cont == 0 (and so you should write "(0) to exit. (1) to restart" or something similar)

What error does it cast? And a bit more of the code would be good as well..

Yeah, done that a million of times myself :3

} while (cont == "y");

(:

Yes. But the reason we are accessing the the destructor in the first place is because theres something we want done differently. For example if you have a linked list and want to destroy the list...

Very true. But erm.. You see, I mixed words up. I meant to say function overloading instead of polymorphisms (I keep mixing the words up.. >_>").

[Edit]
Having several destructors using overloaded functions and that way still having the "standard" destructor which would be the one used for automatic calls?
[\Edit] Sorry, mixed words up >_>...

2 questions.

Why doesn't destructors take any parameters? It's not that it's a problem that they doesn't. It should be fairly simple to get around. I just don't see any reason to why it wont take...

Wouldn't it be possible to have a function which took an int and a string and returned the int and the string as one string and then inset the function to replace the "0/n" part.

Something like:...