From: Mike Young <mikey@mcs.com>
Subject: Re: Q: on redefinition of "=
Date: 1996/04/02
Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3160C33B.1FE2@mcs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dewar.828416284@schonberg
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> "Anyway, in the design I'm currently working with all types must
> support automatic initialization and finalization (and thus are
> controlled types)"
>
> This sounds truly awful. I wonder if whoever devised this approach has
> any idea how much overhead this approach introduces, not to mention
> complexity in the generated code.
==========
Would this be the equivalent of constructors/destructors in C++? I
apologize for not seeing the problems. What is going on that would make
this such a horrible approach?
Mike.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-04-02 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-03-30 0:00 Q: on redefinition of "= david scott gibson
1996-04-01 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-04-01 0:00 ` david scott gibson
1996-04-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Mike Young [this message]
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-04-02 0:00 ` david scott gibson
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-04-02 0:00 ` david scott gibson
1996-04-02 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-04-02 0:00 ` david scott gibson
1996-04-03 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-04-01 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-04-01 0:00 ` david scott gibson
1996-04-01 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox