[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft

• From: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: 06 Dec 1999 09:34:57 +0100

>>>>> David Megginson <david@m...>:

> Actually, I don't see any strong argument not to provide empty inline
> implementations for the handler callbacks:

Inlined virtuals will cause an instantiation of the vtable and the
function bodies in _every_ compilation unit the header file is
included into (ref. Scott Meyers "More Effective C++", Item 24 pp
118).

This is a size cost that can be easily avoided.

I'm also coming more and more to the conclusion that even trivial
non-virtual function bodies should not be inlined, _unless_ there is a 
clear performance reason to do so.

This is because even trivial inlined function occasinally needs to be
changed and changing something in a headerfile causes recompilation.

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • SAX/C++: First interface draft
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
  • Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
• Next by Date: Re: simple XML for C++ application data-file I/O
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
• Next by thread: Re: SAX/C++: First interface draft
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread