Re: mutual dependency
Saeed Amrollahi wrote:
On Oct 30, 3:21 pm, Victor Bazarov <v.Abaza...@comAcast.net> wrote:
Saeed Amrollahi wrote:
On Oct 30, 11:47 am, thomas <freshtho...@gmail.com> wrote:
-------------code------------
class A{
public:
A(){}
void f(){
B *b = new B();
}
};
class B{
public:
B(){}
void f(){
A *a = new A();
}};
---------------code------------
for the above sample code, there's compile error.
if I put a declaration "class B;" at the begining, it says that no
default constructor.
how to declare a default constructor to avoid the compile error?
[..]
FYI, such mutual dependency isn't good sign of object-oriented design.
Really? Why is that?
V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Victor
I just mean, with a good design, we can avoid such mutual
dependencies.
Do explain. Please.
I face with the following code patterns a lot of times:
class A {
B* pB;
};
class B {
A* pA;
};
with a review on class design I can avoid such "mutual" dependencies.
But that's not what the OP has. Look again.
V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask