On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/10/2012 04:53 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> It is not clear what the benefit is to move existing perfectly working >> internal non-member functions to being member functions a huge struct. > > > I did this with cxx_eval_constant_expression and the functions it uses > internally. The advantage is that you do not have to thread manually all > the state arguments, and it is trivial to add additional state to pass > around.
Florian, I was not making a blanket statement in the abstract. Rather, I was commenting on the specific patch that Aaron posted. That cannot possibly be called "encapsulation." > You could also do this with an explicit pointer-to-context-struct parameter > that's passed around (and that version of the patch I posted), but the > class-based approached seems nicer to me. Are we talking about encapsulation or "looking nice"? In either case, I respectfully disagree -- talking specifically about the patch posted. Having a giant struct with a zillion of member functions defies any reasonable notion of "looking nice", and of "encapsulation." -- Gaby
