Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Lets say i have a Shape object that has a constructor like this:
Shape( width, height, radius, depth )
Now, I just have a silly rect so i dont need redius and depth… is it okey to do
Shape myRect(50, 50, NULL, NULL) ?
I know its not the best idea and I should use inheritance and stuff but this is the mess im in so can i use NULL like this?
Depends on what types radius and depth are. If they are integers, you have to use an out-of-bound value like -1 to indicate “not set” (out-of-bound could also be 0 if you declare it that way). If they are pointers, NULL could be used.
Actually what you describe is a common example of bad inheritance, and it’s used in OOP teaching to show why not everything should be inherited. Shapes are just too different for this.