🚀 go-pugleaf

According to craig@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Craig Hubley):
>In article <27CD159D.6581@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Is there any reason to avoid virtual functions for object storage?
>
>The need to derive all "storable" types from a given base.  Among other
>problems, you can't store an int or a char* that way.

I wouldn't expect an OODB to be able to store a |char *|, since it has
no way to know what it's pointing at and/or who "owns" it.

>>I had not envisioned a virtual function to return type information,
>>but rather a virtual function to actually _do_the_work_, so no one
>>outside of that function need know the actual type of the object
>>stored.
>
>This works so long as you are prepared to write a new function for each
>storable type.  This is not what I expect from an OODB.

Surely you would in practice distinguish between "some entity needs to
write it" and "_I_ need to write it".  Any OODB worth the floppy it's
distributed on would generate such a function automatically.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT     <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
   "All this is conjecture of course, since I *only* post in the nude.
    Nothing comes between me and my t.b.  Nothing."   -- Bill Coderre