home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: abell@mindspring.com (Andrew Bell)
- Message-ID: <4k7c9s$t5e@mule1.mindspring.com>
- X-Original-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 03:22:53 GMT
- Path: in1.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 07 Apr 96 08:13:28 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Return-Path: <daemon@meeker.UCAR.EDU>
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: constness of private members and methods
- Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
- References: <m0u3992-000GcEC@7.kurahaupo.gen.nz> <3161eaa4.8216104@nntp.ix.netcom.com> <4jvcrn$ch2@mule1.mindspring.com> <4k3q10$7bd@hermes.synopsys.com>
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99.82
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMWd5PuEDnX0m9pzZAQFjxwF+JurnZbBD1IbQzGoShA0qY8lty284znTy
- du0gFsuUbOllrizxItO7m3563CShd2Zb
- =Gi/H
-
- jbuck@Synopsys.COM (Joe Buck) wrote:
- >abell@mindspring.com (Andrew Bell) writes:
- >>The problem is the compiler needs to know the "purity" of the
- >>functions a given function calls during its compilation, or it can't
- >>optimize the code. You would thus have to compile all the called
- >>functions first,
-
- >No, you wouldn't.
-
- Tsk, tsk, Joe, you misidentified someone else's statements as Jason's,
- and then edited out the part I was responding to, thus making it look
- like I was responding to something I wasn't. I was responding to
- Jason's comment that "pure" and "clean" as modifiers weren't necessary
- with a slightly smarter compiler. My response was that in that case,
- all the code would have to be precompiled for purity/cleanliness,
- before anything could be compiled, a statement I still stand by.
-
- >>With the proposed idea, a function that claims to pure and isn't would
- >>be tagged with a compiler error. This might be problematic with
- >>templates, as instantiation for a particular type may lead to non-pure
- >>functions being called.
-
- >Replace "pure" with "const". It's no different.
-
- In that case, pure would have to be part of the function
- prototype(specification? Not sure if I'm using the right term here),
- which would increase its impact on the language specification. It
- also means you could conceivably have both pure and impure (*) and
- clean and unclean versions of the same function, though you could
- restrict it to not allow this.
-
- I suspect the standardization committee might be reluctant to make
- such a change just for optimization reasons (especially at this
- point), but maybe there will be a C++ '98 or some such. (Gotta be,
- for my wrappers proposal! :-)
-
- Andrew Bell
- abell@mindspring.com
-
- * Although impure functions might be illegal in functions that might
- be used by children because of the Exon Amendment....
- ---
- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: try just posting with ]
- [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
- [ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
- [ Policy: http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
- [ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]
-