From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2003-05-13T20:11:38+09:00
Subject: Re: State Pattern Implementation


"Simon Strandgaard" <0bz63fz3m1qt3001@sneakemail.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:pan.2003.05.13.11.04.00.160567@sneakemail.com...
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 10:11:42 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> > I'd like to hear what people think: is this a reasonable
implementation of
> > the state pattern?
>
> You are representing each state by a number... with the State pattern
> isn't each state supposed to be represented by a class ?

Normally, yes.  The association with a number is just for the ease of
keying the example in.  My main idea was to replace the state instance by
a redefinition of instance methods.  Pro is, you safe an instance and a
redirection; on the con side is increased code size for the class since
you have to include code for all states.

I'm curios to know whether anybody did this before.  I might be missing
some grave disadvantage.

Regards

    robert