On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:15 -0700, Corey O'Connor wrote:
> On 9/15/05, David Baelde <david.baelde@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think the decorator pattern fullfills my needs, cause it does
> > not allow you to end up with one object having an added method from
> > one decorator and an other one from a different decorator. You can
> > compose decorators, but you'll only see the methods of the last one.

> class IBuffer
> {
> public:
> 	virtual void SomeMethod() = 0;
> }

WTF does the C++ community have the audacity .. or is it
just plain ignorance .. to rename what is nothing
more than a fold ..

.. except of course .. it is considerably *less* functionality,
since you can make a list of the functions
to fold over the object in many orders dynamically,
without needing any class crud, which names types
that don't exist.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sourceforge dot net>