Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ian Collins Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:21:56 -0800 (PST) Organization: unknown Lines: 57 Sender: std-cpp-request@vandevoorde.com Approved: james.dennett@gmail.com Message-ID: References: <8f16e792-bac4-48f8-b542-33549608f11f@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: g63C30m6Q7O0sXXO0xaqimtD2pk47cSfipG4eKfCi/g= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Trace: news.albasani.net AILU+owjTumoRkIDNOfWCEzKMa0p9g3/iqPq01gjj6/xNpArqMofykfBOZvaRJWabZL+IAjjRnvONDWcwgFFQg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@albasani.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 02:22:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Perl5 Mail::Internet v2.05 X-Submission-Address: std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com Cancel-Lock: sha1:CPxqrbQgerHMdmbPy7XjCNi667A= X-Original-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 09:33:19 +1300 Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c++:593 christopher.dearlove@googlemail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:06:37 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote: >> >> christopher.dearlove@googlemail.com wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, December 14, 2012 5:19:33 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> >>>> Your proposal would not improve testability, the locally private >>>> functions would, by virtue of their linkage, be impossible to test. >>> >>> How do you test a normal private function? >> >> I wouldn't. > > > So your objection to the proposal is that it doesn't improve tetability, > something which the OP didn't claim, when the current alternative is > from your comment, untestable. No, I was commenting on the the line directly above my reply, the line you conveniently snipped: [regarding approaches to implementing complex/lengthy member functions] "Write huge, unwieldy member functions that become incredibly difficult to validate / test / document" One alternative, not the one I suggested which you also conveniently snipped. > Not exactly a relevant objection. Well the proposal aimed at avoiding something that results in hard to test code... >> In most cases if a function is too large to inline, the overhead >> of calling is is minimal compared to the time spent in the function. >> The inline keyword is never more than a hint, so any warnings are >> probably spurious and could be suppressed. > > > And another objection that isn't to anything actually said by either > the OP or myself. Er, over zealous snipping again, this time your own comments. -- Ian Collins [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try posting with your ] [ newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-cpp-submit@vandevoorde.com ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]