httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: another naming question
Date Wed, 24 Dec 1997 13:14:45 GMT
Alexei Kosut wrote:
> > I haven't even mentioned yet the expense of having 20 function pointers
> > in struct foo {} *for every instance of struct foo*, talk about blowing
> > your RAM caches.  To deal with that you start behaving like C++ ... you
> > end up with:
> 
> Point, I guess. One way to deal with this is to do what ISAPI does, and
> only have four functions. But I don't want to do that.
> 
> > Huh?  So we're making the C ugly and slow just so that C++ programmers
> > can have "pretty" syntax?
> 
> This was just another benefit of doing it that way - I'm not saying that
> that in any way is the reason I'm advocating it. It is a silly reason.

I don't understand how using a mechanism that is similar to the
underlying mechanism in C++ has any impact at all on C++ wrappers.

Of course, if you need functions to be virtual, then you need them to be
virtual. One of the nice things about C++ is that you can change your
mind about this and you are just a recompile away from having it.
Another nice thing is that you can have zero-overhead wrappers (by
careful use of inlining).

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686|Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |Apache-SSL author
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache

Mime
View raw message