Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.std.c++ > #591

Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions

Show all headers | View raw

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.

Not exactly a relevant objection.

>  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.

Daniel, as usual, had it right. There would be some gains. There
would be some costs (in standardisation and implementation). But
neither is about testability or inlining.


-- 
[ 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                      ]

Back to comp.std.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions kfsone@googlemail.com - 2012-11-21 11:29 -0800
  Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Francis Glassborow<francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2012-12-14 09:10 -0800
  Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Daniel Krügler<daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com> - 2012-12-14 09:11 -0800
  Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Ian Collins<ian-news@this.is.invalid> - 2012-12-14 09:19 -0800
    Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions christopher.dearlove@googlemail.com - 2012-12-17 08:52 -0800
      Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Ian Collins<ian-news@this.is.invalid> - 2012-12-18 16:06 -0600
        Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions christopher.dearlove@googlemail.com - 2013-02-22 10:48 -0600
          Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions ootiib@hot.ee - 2013-02-22 16:39 -0600
            Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Jason McKesson <jmckesson@googlemail.com> - 2013-02-23 23:22 -0800
              Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Balog Pal<pasa@lib.hu> - 2013-02-25 11:01 -0600
          Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Ian Collins <ian-news@this.is.invalid> - 2013-02-23 18:21 -0800
            Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions christopher.dearlove@googlemail.com - 2013-02-25 10:59 -0600
    Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Balog Pal<pasa@lib.hu> - 2013-02-25 11:01 -0600
      Re: Proposal: Compilation-unit scoped private member functions Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2013-02-28 22:16 -0800

csiph-web