Author: Gerd Isenberg
Date: 22:54:29 07/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2003 at 19:00:41, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On July 28, 2003 at 18:26:29, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>References, function inlining and namespaces are enaugh to use C++. > >Gerd, references is enough for me, to avoid C++. In the "old days", when I read >code with a function call, like foo(a), I was sure, that a will be the same >after the function call, than before. With C++, I cannot be sure anymore. If I >want to make a changable by a function call, I use &a in C. All pretty much self >documenting. Not anymore in C++. Hi Dieter, i see your point - i have no problems with references, may be due to Java. References are very intuitive for me, but i don't use them "randomly" in functions. Most often the "output" paramter by reference is the first (left) one - and i use appropriate function identifiers, implying the desired side effect. int bitScanAndReset(BitBoard &bb); void assignWithMask(int &target, int source, int mask); > >It may even be a performance issue. I read your suggestion about the small >inline functions vs. macros. I basically agree. But when using reference >paramaters (your example did), things might be very different. This might make >it very difficult or even impossible to make a good optimization for the >compiler. I never found a problem so far. I guess from compilers point of view, there is no pragmatical difference between a pointer and a reference. Regards, Gerd > >Function inlining is part of the ISO C Standard of 1999. Not all compilers >support it. > >Regards, >Dieter
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.