• Trevor Parscal (48/48) May 30 2005 Lets say I have a class..
• Tom S (7/9) May 30 2005 to:
• Trevor Parscal (9/18) May 30 2005 Thank YOU!!!! I feel stupid, but mostly thankful that you could answer m...
• Tom S (4/9) May 30 2005 It's just a matter of skillful dosing of caffeine
• Stewart Gordon (8/26) May 31 2005

Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:

Lets say I have a class..

class PIXEL
{
private:
int x, y;

public:
bit function() CallBack;
this()
{
this.CallBack = null;
}
void Set(int _x, int _y)
{
this.x = _x;
this.y = _y;
if(&this.CallBack != null)
{
this.CallBack();
}
}
};

Which I intend on (if connected) sending a notification to whatever I attach to
the callback that the value was changed.

And than I have another class, which has the actual function I want to set the
callback up to call...

class FOO
{
private:
update()
{
// update code
}
public:
PIXEL Pixel;
this()
{
this.Pixel = new PIXEL();
this.Pixel.CallBack = &this.update;
}
};

Why am I screwed? Cause the compiler says i have to make update() a static
function, however, I want update() to use the "this" operator...

Any way to work around this?

Any help is greatly appriciated.

Thanks,
Trevor Parscal
www.trevorparscal.com
trevorparscal hotmail.com

Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:

Trevor Parscal wrote:
 Why am I screwed?

change this:
 bit function() CallBack;

to:
bit delegate() CallBack

and everything shall be fine


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

Trevor Parscal <Trevor_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <d7f31i$21qi$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Tom S says...
Trevor Parscal wrote:
 Why am I screwed?

change this:
 bit function() CallBack;

to:
bit delegate() CallBack

and everything shall be fine


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/


Thank YOU!!!! I feel stupid, but mostly thankful that you could answer my
question.

WHY is it the later at night it gets the less capable we are at solving simple
problems?

Thanks Again!
Trevor Parscal
www.trevorparscal.com
trevorparscal hotmail.com

Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:

Trevor Parscal wrote:
 Thank YOU!!!! I feel stupid, but mostly thankful that you could answer my
 question.
 
 WHY is it the later at night it gets the less capable we are at solving simple
 problems?

It's just a matter of skillful dosing of caffeine <g>


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/

Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:

Trevor Parscal wrote:
 Lets say I have a class..
 
 class PIXEL
 {
 private:
 int x, y;
 
 public:
 bit function() CallBack;
 this()
 {
 this.CallBack = null;
 }
 void Set(int _x, int _y)
 {
 this.x = _x;
 this.y = _y;
 if(&this.CallBack != null)

<snip>

Wouldn't this test the address at which the pointer is situated, rather 
than testing the pointer itself?

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.