On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Artovil wrote: > Funny that you skipped the last part of that paragraph including my > paranthesis in which I stated exactly the same thing, just phrased > differently. ;) I was elaborating, not meaning to selectively edit. While I suspected then, and know now, that you meant the same thing I said, the way in which you said it wasn't particularly clear (to me). I certainly wasn't meaning to misrepresent what you said. > Perhaps easier to read, but harder to find with a grep Is it particularly important to grep for all IS_xxx references? I can think of a few instances where you might want to, but none in which you'd need to do so repeatedly and not care about other CLASS_ references. You're probably right: it's merely an aesthetic preference. > The second solution sounds best, since the first seems that I need one > int or bool for every is_type, right? The last one just stores one > int? Or did you just use is_magi as an example to clarify? Just as an example to clarify that you weren't in any way confined by what type of information you could then store per class. You could also have different levels of "magi-ness" (nonce) that you might want to store in a separate int, rather than use up flags in a bitvector for. I wasn't sure what you wanted; knew it's possible to account for it. -dak -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | | Newbie List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circle-newbies/ | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/24/03 PDT