[lkml]   [1999]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: linux headers and C++
    Nix wrote:
    > C++ templates, correctly used, are, eg, a type-enforcement system for
    > untyped containers; that is, you have a class that implements, say, a
    > list, in terms of void pointers; then you implement an almost empty
    > template on top of that that *privately* inherits from the untyped list,
    > and reimplements its accessors in terms of typesafe casts to the untyped
    > list accessors.

    That's done in Linux in C already: see <linux/list.h>.

    > This works, and has zero bloat; in fact it is *more* compact than the
    > analogous magic-number-based implementation in C, relying instead upon
    > the RTTI structures already generated by the compiler.

    Nonsense. (a) RTTI has nothing to do with generic containers and
    typesafe accessors; (b) the wrapper macros aren't typesafe in C but they
    certainly don't use magic numbers; (c) when RTTI _is_ used for variant
    types, a C switch is usually faster and smaller; (d) RTTI has other

    > So please stop saying templates are bloated. They *are* easy to produce
    > bloated stuff in, and could probably be faulted for that; but they are
    > *not* intrinsically bloat creators. It is perfectly possible (and easy)
    > to produce non-bloating, typesafe stuff with templates.

    We know. It doesn't happen in practice: even the STL does not work the
    way you describe. (It can be, but you have to do it quite deliberately
    and write the type conversions yourself).

    -- Jamie

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.019 / U:134.532 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site