From: borland.com!pete@decwrl.dec.com (Pete Becker)
Subject: Re: Multiple Inheritance
Date: 2 Jan 92 19:45:07 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1992Jan2.194507.3074@borland.com> (raw)
In article <4969@charon.cwi.nl> guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum) writes:
>bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
>
>>MI in C++ and elsewhere isn't perfect and it isn't a panacea, but it works
>>and it makes some styles of programming noticeably more convenient and
>>less obscure. Naturally, it can also be overused and misused, but basically
>>it works.
>
>Point taken. However, I still worry about MI. When MI is *not* used,
>it still imposes an overhead -- there is a "delta" offset in the vtbl
>that is added to "this" each time a virtual function is called, but
>this delta can only ever be nonzero when MI is used. I feel that this
>is in direct conflict with the C++ philosophy that language features
>you don't use shouldn't cause overhead.
>
That's an implementation issue, not a problem in the language
definition. Those of us who have the luxury of being able to compile to
native code rather than C can easily avoid this problem. Which is to say,
with our compiler, there is no MI-related overhead in any class that does
not use multiple inheritance.
-- Pete
next reply other threads:[~1992-01-02 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1992-01-02 19:45 Pete Becker [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1992-01-03 19:33 Multiple Inheritance Jim ADCOCK
1992-01-02 20:03 Larry M. Jordan
1991-12-28 17:14 Guido van Rossum
1989-10-23 12:43 multiple inheritance "EDWARD CRAGG"
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox