Hi Paul,
Can someone please explain the MixinVector change and why it was
necessary? Also, please explain the name "MixinVector" -- what, exactly,
is a "Mixin"? If this is a design pattern, I must admit I'm not familiar
with it.
To add to what Robert said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixin
"In object-oriented programming languages, a mixin is a class that
provides a certain functionality to be inherited by a subclass, but is
not meant to stand alone. Inheriting from a mixin is not a form of
specialization but is rather a means to collect functionality. A class
may inherit most or all of its functionality by inheriting from one or
more mixins through multiple inheritance."
In effect, since MixinVector has a std::vector, and has operations that
just redirect calls to the internal std::vector (like operator[],
push_back() etc.), and then the Array classes inherit from MixinVector
instead of directly from std::vector, the functionality is the same, but
it removes the problem that was caused by std::vector's destructor not
being virtual.
It's debatable whether std::vector was just not meant to be subclassed
or whether it was an oversight when designing it... The previous use
would certainly have been valid if the destructor had been declared virtual.
Hope this helps,
J-S
--
______________________________________________________
Jean-Sebastien Guay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cm-labs.com/
http://whitestar02.webhop.org/
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
