home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: access1.digex.net!not-for-mail
- From: ell@access1.digex.net (Ell)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c
- Subject: Re: Performance: C vs. C++
- Date: 10 Feb 1996 04:03:08 GMT
- Organization: The Universe
- Message-ID: <4fh5ds$89v@news4.digex.net>
- References: <30F6BAAC.12B5@iastate.edu> <4da9pn$a45@news.bridge.net> <4dnpl2$c8g@classic.iinet.com.au> <3105E9DC.1BE3@enermet.fi> <DLr46y.7rH@txnews.amd.com> <4elk5l$3f2q@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <pronet01.31.003EB1E6@indirect.com> <3117F980.7890@hpato.aus.hp.com> <4fgd62$asb@gaia.ns.utk.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-
- Matthew B. Kennel (mbk@I_should_put_my_domain_in_etc_NNTP_INEWS_DOMAIN) wrote:
- : An example of an annoying design flaw that affects performance in C++:
- :
- : This calling "member functions in for loops" business.
- : The problem is that C++ offers neither
- :
- : 1) A linguistic mechanism to say "this is not a dispatched
- : pointer". I think it's a flaw to forcibly connect
- : reference semantics with dispatchability.
-
- From what I understand, unamibguous compile time pointer references in C++
- will be resolved at compile time.
-
- Elliott
-