Re: What databases have taught me
From: Robert Martin <unclebob_at_objectmentor.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 18:01:38 -0500
Message-ID: <2006070418013851816-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
>
> Right.
>
>
> I'm not at all where any doubt would come from. If the language
> behaves exactly like C++, then it's C++.
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 18:01:38 -0500
Message-ID: <2006070418013851816-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
On 2006-07-02 19:22:21 -0500, Chris Smith <cdsmith_at_twu.net> said:
> Robert Martin <unclebob_at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
>> On 2006-06-30 20:44:16 -0500, Chris Smith <cdsmith_at_twu.net> said: >>> I don't find it particularly compelling to distinguish this/self from >>> instance fields in that way, especially since the distinction appeals >>> primarily to implementation rather than the actual meaning of what's >>> going on. I could very easily implement C++ in such a way that 'this' >>> remains constant regardless of its static type in terms of the >>> inheritance hierarchy. The only thing I'd lose is a bit of performance >>> in metghod dispatch. >> >> You'd also lose a bit of performance in accessing fields.
>
> Right.
>
>> What's more, I'm not sure the language would be C++ any longer; though >> I'm not sure of that.
>
> I'm not at all where any doubt would come from. If the language
> behaves exactly like C++, then it's C++.
That's the point. I can't remember if the language definition demands that 'this' be different for multiply inherited base classes.
-- Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com 800-338-6716 |Received on Wed Jul 05 2006 - 01:01:38 CEST