> -- but suppose the array DOES change? Suppose we were currently
> accessing the fifth object in the array, and somebody goes and
> deletes item 2. Now, which is the correct behavior: continue to
> access the same object (which is nowfourth in the array), or
> continue to access the fifth element (which is a different object,
> as well as a cheesy movie)?
I have spent enough time with "bookkeeping", when using the chosen
array member's index as reference; changing the numbers for all
index references, where ever they are used, when array members are
removed. Anyway, the matter seems to boil down, as I think you've
indicated: if one wants to hold on to the specific object, use the
pointer to the array member; if one wants to hold on to the specific
ordinal member of the array, use the index. Both ways require some
error checking (if nil, for the pointer if it's array member is
deleted; if above the upper bound of the array, if ordinal index is
used).
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|