* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010222 19:13]:
> > The minor point is that you add the overhead of handling virtual
> > functions, while this is not so great, it should be rememebered.
>
> Which overhead over the original version do you mean?
I didn't get the context of mathed with its virt
> The minor point is that you add the overhead of handling virtual
> functions, while this is not so great, it should be rememebered.
Which overhead over the original version do you mean?
Original:
definition: derived * ptr;
call:ptr->print()
1. deref ptr and get its vta
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010222 18:24]:
>
> I think using this idiom we could save a lot of pain. Most classes that do
> not have any pointer members do not need copy constructors, assigment
> operators or destructors, so the mistakes are less likely... Not to mention
> memory leaks..
> Look at the boost/boost/smart_ptr.hpp
Which of the classes do you mean?
I don't want the wrapper to look like a pointer to the object but
rather like the object itself...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| First of all: I really hate plain pointers so I am probably biased when it
| comes to judge the benefits of implementations using pointers.
|
| The problem is, we currently need pointers in order to use virtual
| functions (references are not acceptab
