MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!. HO! HO! HO!.

No. I'm guessing that Albin Engström is hinting that this may be Christmas time, but we're not feeling benevolent enough to do all the coding for you. We can help, but firstly you really need to pick up a C++ book, or check out the on-line tutorials, and try to work it out for yourself. If you get stuck, then maybe we can help you.

For the initialization (allegro_init(), etc.), that should be in the main function.

Classes (in my opinion) should just give the main function bitmaps to draw, or even just their position. Although after you initialize allegro in the main function, classes can use allegro functions.

I hope this answers your question. (And I hope that my answer is valid. )

are you kidding?

[EDIT]
but to name one thing which is totally wrong:
don't use goto

also, you can't just write code into a class without putting it into a method. I think you should inform yourself about the concept of object-orientation before trying to use classes.

We will not do your homework for you, either.

so I have questions:

1. in the class is this must be private or maybe something else ??:

BITMAP *board;  
BITMAP *pawn; 
BITMAP *buffer;

??

2.

constructor in the class should be ?????:
boardboard (BITMAP a, BITMAP b, BITMAP c)  //constructor
{
           *board=a;
           *board=b;
           *board=c;
           
}

3.

constructor in the main ????- what is wrong ??:
boardboard something ("board.bmp","pawn.bmp",NULL);  //constructor

4. destructor in the class - what is wrong :

~boardboard(a, b, c)   //destructor
{
destroy_bitmap(board); 
destroy_bitmap(pawn); 
destroy_bitmap(buffer); 
}

5. destructor in main - what is wrong :
something.boardboard::~boardboard(BITMAP a, BITMAP b, BITMAP c); //destructor

Okay, I'm just going to be blunt as hell.

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You don't know what classes or objects are, what they represent, or how to use them. And you're trying to shoehorn a paradigm that you don't understand onto existing code that you probably don't understand either.

GET A C++ BOOK. FOLLOW IT. START FROM THE BOTTOM.

Then come back when you have questions that make sense.

Steve head hurt >_<

LennyLen thank you - you are very helpful - Can I give you some points for help ?

I read c++ books and now I want use my knowledge but it is now the most complicated programm which I want write so I want that you help me - do some of you have really to be such boorish ?
Your advices very help me understand classes, constructors, destructors and ALLEGRO - really .

I change my code - could you now what in this code is wrong ??

boardboard (BITMAP a, BITMAP b, BITMAP c)  //constructor
{
           *board=&a;
           *board=&b;
           *board=&c;
           
}

WTF is that?

kosmitek:

1) You should probably put the class declaration in its own header (.H) file and the implementation in a .CPP file:

something.h:

class boardboard
{
   public:

      boardboard (BITMAP a, BITMAP b, BITMAP c);   // Constructor
      ~boardboard(); // Destructor

      void function();

   private:
      BITMAP *board;
      BITMAP *pawn;
      BITMAP *buffer;
};

something.cpp:

2) You should put your movement TEST routines in a regular function, not a class. You should keep your movement LOGIC routines in the class:

That would also take care of the need for the GOTO statement in there: it would be processed fine without ever needing that.

3) As Durnus said, you are trying to pass strings: boardboard something ("board.bmp", "pawn.bmp", NULL); into a function that is expecting a BITMAP pointer: boardboard(BITMAP a, BITMAP b, BITMAP c) (which should be <b>boardboard(BITMAP *a, BITMAP *b, BITMAP c), by the way.

You would want to change either:

...or...

4) I'm not entirely certain what you're doing with all those pointers (tab1 and tab2), but you could DEFINITELY be able to simplify those, or get rid of them entirely (why have an array with the VALUES 0..9, instead of just using "0..9" as numbers?).

Look, the very fact that you're trying to impose an object-oriented design approach onto something that isn't designed that way in the first place is the clearest indicator we could possibly get that you just don't understand object-oriented programming. Get a different book, read it slowly, and follow the exercises if there are any.