On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:00 PM, James Porter wrote:
On 3/1/2010 2:10 PM, Christopher Jefferson wrote:
Presumably each "int" now has 2 member function pointers. Thus 4 bytes becomes 20 bytes (best case, 64 bit ptrs) and more on compilers that have bigger member function pointers.
What exactly do you mean?
In order for a property ("Age" in the original example) to be able to reference other properties/members of its containing class, it needs a pointer to the object containing it.
But now that I re-read Daniel's message, maybe he's suggesting that you'd have to have:
struct foo { int data; int (*getter)(); void (*setter)(int); };
which is certainly unnecessary if you're being smart with templates.
My assumption was that the class with the property would want the getter/setter to access other properties of the same class. For example, say you need to have a mutex around data and thus your setter/getter has something to do. So long as your setter/getter has no external context then why not just use a public data member? If the setter/getter of property A needs to maintain invariants on other properties then I fail to see how your property system would handle it.
- Jim
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost