Re: accidental changes: review

[Juergen Reuter]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> 2007/9/25, Rune Zedeler <address@hidden>:
> > > > +  int octave_;
> > > > +  int notename_;
> > > > +  Rational alteration_;
> > >
> > > Why don't you use a Pitch object for this combination? You would get
> > > Scale* for free.
> >
> > Primarily because the two values octave_ and has_octave_ are very
> > closely related.
> > They really /should/ be joined to an int option - if such a thing did
> > exist in c++.
>
> you might want to look into making octave optional for pitch; I'm not
> sure if it is worth the trouble, but it would make key signatures more
> logical to specify.
>
> Otherwise, you could use an int*

I am just curious: Why not introducing a new class "Octaveless_pitch" 
or "Octave_Pitch" (i.e. pitch within an octave) that contains all of 
"Pitch" except for the octaves, and then making "Pitch" a subclass of 
"Octaveless_pitch" that just adds the octaves to its superclass?

Greetings,
Juergen