Creating entangled objects

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
> wrote:
> >> I can see why it may need a prototype. But why does it need a
> constructor?
> >
> > From what I'm told, in order to explain how the object was created.
> > I.e. to avoid building "magic" into the API.
> >
> > But maybe there are other ways to do that?
>
> This is a cool discussion, but it's also a complete tangent from the
> original thread. ^_^
>

Hi Tab, Good point. Changing title to start new thread.

Hi Jonas, I don't understand. If the two objects are entangled, having one
call that creates both seems like a better explanation than pretending to
have two constructors. That the two objects have different APIs and methods
are adequately explained by different prototypes.



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM