RE: properties, lists of properties and API access

  • From: "Ken Perry" <whistler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:25:13 -0500

Sorry I did miss understand exactly what you were going for.  F

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Littlefield,
Tyler
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 6:43 PM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: properties, lists of properties and API access

Sweet, that was my first idea, just thought something was up since Ken 
started talking about static members and that. I wasn't sure how good it 
was on performance.
On 1/21/2011 4:21 PM, Sina Bahram wrote:
> Nothing at all.
>
> That's what I'd do.
>
> Except I'd throw an array in there too, because you can have more than one
of each type of object.
>
> Take care,
> Sina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Littlefield,
Tyler
> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 5:09 PM
> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: properties, lists of properties and API access
>
> Thanks for the link. Though I'm not really sure what they were doing. I
> get the whole nested map question, but about 10 different solutions were
> talked about, repeated, then talked about some more with some mpl
> solutions here and there.
> To clerify, what's wrong with:
> std::map<std::string, std::map<std::string, val>  >  vals?
>
> On 1/21/2011 2:58 PM, Sina Bahram wrote:
>> I urge you to look at the discussion here:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1500208/nested-stdmaps
>>
>> take care,
>> Sina
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Littlefield,
Tyler
>> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:42 PM
>> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: properties, lists of properties and API access
>>
>> Uh. How is a static member on an airplain going to help me solve my
>> problem? The goal is to store lists of properties per airplain; bob's
>> plain may be different from joes. I think I found a solution though. I'm
>> going to use my overloaded [] to check for a single property, then if
>> that fails check for something on the property list (or just overload
>> each), then rather than having a vector of maps I can have a vector of
>> PropertyObjects, which the person can do whatever they want with. I
>> think it'd be quicker than using double maps, anyway.
>> On 1/21/2011 2:36 PM, Ken Perry wrote:
>>> I think what you're looking for is a static member.  Static members of
>>> classes means there is only one and they are all the same.  You can use
this
>>> to count how many objects of a type or set things like a global object
>>> value.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Littlefield,
>>> Tyler
>>> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:57 AM
>>> To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: properties, lists of properties and API access
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>> I have a quick question, or maybe not so quick, after I explain.
>>> Aspen's properties are what are stored that allows a coder to serialize
>>> properties and access them with other components. It essentially is just
>>> a hash_map<std::string, Variant>. Now, I have a bit of an issue. I'm
>>> looking at building an object such as a ship, for example. Now, each
>>> ship wil have multiple different weapons, so I will need a sort of
>>> collection. I'm having a problem with this, because right now I can just
>>> do object["hp"]=100 and it sets the hp varaint to 100. Now, if I want
>>> collections I want to do something like:
>>> object['weapons'][0]['damage']... Are there any solutions to setting
>>> something like this up? Maybe I can just overload the [] operator on my
>>> PropertyContainer class, so that it will check for the existance of a
>>> variant, and if such a variant does not exist it will then proceed to
>>> check for the value in the collections list?
>>> Which leads me to another concern. My property list will end up looking
>>> something like:
>>> std::hash_map<std::string, std::vector<std::hash_map<std::string,
>>> Variant>    >    >;
>>> This does not seem like a great idea, at all. But I'm not really sure
>>> how to set it up so that it might work faster, etc. Ideas would be
welcome.
>>>
>


-- 

Thanks,
Ty
http://tds-solutions.net
Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.--
Albert Einstein
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live
forever.-gandhi
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.-Robert McCloskey

__________
View the list's information and change your settings at 
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

__________
View the list's information and change your settings at 
//www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

Other related posts: