object method implementation

Question

5.00/5 (1 vote)

See more:

OOP

I read in an article that objects there is just during program implementation. Is it correct?

Posted 17-Mar-11 6:07am

jnestor1

Add a Solution

Comments

jim lahey 17-Mar-11 12:09pm

pardon?

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 17-Mar-11 14:44pm

It does not sound like making any sense at all. Please also see my comment to Griff's answer.
--SA

1 solution

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

OriginalGriff · Answer 1 · 2011-03-17T06:15:00

Solution 1

Yes.
Objects you create in your program are destroyed when they "go out of scope": I.e. the flow of control exits from the block in which the object was declared, be that an "if" block:

if(myCondition)
   {
   int myInt;
   ...
   } // myInt is out of scope here, and can be destroyed.

or a method:

C#

private void myMethod()
   {
   int myInt;
   ...
   } // myInt is out of scope here, and can be destroyed.

When your program ends, all objects are out of scope, and can be destroyed.

[edit]
Reading back on that, it implies that all objects are destroyed, which is not true: as long as there is a reference to an object, it is not eligible for destruction, so you can pass a reference to an object outside the scope in which it was created.

   Point myPoint;
   myMethod();
   ...
private void myMethod()
   {
   int myInt;
   Point p = new Point(100,100);
   myPoint = p;
   } // myInt is out of scope here and so is p, but myPoint is
     // referring to the Point object, so it will not be destroyed.

[/edit]

Posted 17-Mar-11 6:15am

OriginalGriff

Updated 17-Mar-11 6:20am

v2

Comments

Albin Abel 17-Mar-11 13:30pm

Clear explanation on object scope. My 5

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 17-Mar-11 14:44pm

Griff, the problem is: exact platform/technology/language is not specified. Your answer is biased to managed platforms. You also should have mentioned that in managed platform the object is destroyed not when going out of scope and not even when the reference is lost, but at some later moment, depending on implementation of the GC.

I did not want to answer the Question, because it is not correct. The question mention "just during program implementation", which sounds like gibberish. It's good that you don't answer to this directly, but why answering at all? Just pointing out to absurdness of the question would be more appropriate.

--SA

OriginalGriff 17-Mar-11 15:27pm

Hi SA - how are you doing?
The OP is clearly a beginner in OOP in particular and - it seems likely - programming in general. So the most obvious starting point is managed: either VB or C#. C++ tends to be rather too complex for the lecturers who get stuck with the beginners to cope with! :laugh:
So I answer the question based on assumptions from the OP implied question...
The problem with beginners is that they often don't understand the question themselves, so if you just go back with requests for more info they can get too confused and disheartened. If you go back with a relevant answer, it may be partially incorrect, but at least it gives them the feeling that we are trying to help.
We all had to start somewhere, and the first steps can be a bugger to get your head round!

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 17-Mar-11 15:56pm

Hi Griff. Thank you for sharing your ideas. I understand you. I think you should follow that picture of a beginner which is I think quite reasonable, but also take into account my notes to clarify your answer. Doesn't it sound right?
--SA