class CrystalApp{public:   void ResetState()   {      for(int i = 0; i < 4; ++i)      {         delete moGameObject.object;<br>      }<br>   }<br>private:<br>   GameObject moGameObject;<br>}; </pre> This will also work:<pre>class GameObject<br>{<br>public:<br>   static GameObject* object[4];<br>};<br><br>class CrystalApp<br>{<br>public:<br>   void ResetState()<br>   {<br>      for(int i = 0; i < 4; ++i)<br>      {<br>         delete GameObject::object;<br>      }<br>   }<br>}; </pre> <br><br><SPAN CLASS=editedby>[edited by - dalleboy on May 25, 2002 6:14:24 AM]</SPAN>    

quote:
okie, i got that pong clone sometime back from
gameinstitute.com''s c++ course.
i decided to remake it such that it has a neat
template which will be easy to use.
and i have been trying to fit in my tetris clone
which was previously in a pure procedural format.

in other ways, i am trying to convert my tetris clone to class form, and using gameinstitute.com
framework. (its quite hard to get the instructor to reply asap)

i got to the point where i began thinking of how
class objects, sometimes, arrays of pointers declared in classes, can be used to interact
with each other, jus like in the old procedural
way.

so, now then i realize this weird stuffz:
I have 2 classes A & B(non-inherited).
if class B declares an array of pointers in PUBLIC.
so, why cant class A''s member functions use that
particular array of pointers??

as off course, i am using that pong clone provided
to test and try to figure out whats wrong.

It would seem funny(in the pong clone) that
we do not declare the whatever arrays that the
class would use, in its own class. It was declared in the application class instead. and as PRIVATE data members as well.

So, their solution was to use some kind of accessor functions. So class A would have
"Set_B()" function, and vice-versa for class B. Somewhere in the pong application class,
such accessor functions would execute, so
class A would have addresses of pointers of class B. Thus, the objects interact. It was termed
as "introduction of objects to each other".

But, what if they are not single pointers, and they are arrays of pointers. I mean, so
we introduce an array of pointers to another
array of pointers? Its quite an insane thought.

Why not if class A & B declare their own arrays
of pointers, and as PUBLIC? Then, its faster
this way, though it looked global and defeats
the purpose of using classes(not entirely).
Also, they would contain the addresses of the array of pointers
that was declared and mem allocated in the application class.

  class CrystalApp : public D3DApplication{//other stuffzprivate:              GameObject* object[4];                   Crystal_A* crystal_a[4];}  

  //now, i know have to declare instances of classesextern Crystal_A theCrystal_A;void CrystalApp::ResetState()   {	//delete the objects 1st	for (int i=0; i<4; i++)	{	   delete crystal_a[i];	   delete object[i];	}                  //mem alloc         for (int m=0; m(lessthan)4; m++)	{	    crystal_a[m] = new Crystal_A( &crystalModel );	    object[m] = crystal_a[m];	}                //retrieve that array of pointers        theCrystal_A.SetPointerArray(crystal_a);}  

  class Crystal_A : public CrystalMaster{public:		      Crystal_A(D3DModel* model); //constructor	      //Crystal_A();  //do i need this??	              void SetPointerArray(Crystal_A* cpa[4]);public:	      Crystal_A* crystalA[4];};  

  void Crystal_A::SetPointerArray(Crystal_A* cpa[4]){         assert(cpa);         theCrystal_A.crystalA = theCrystal_A.cpa;}