Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!decwrl!nsc!voder!procase!roger
From: roger@procase.UUCP (Roger H. Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: virtual static data?
Message-ID: <154@logo.procase.UUCP>
Date: 26 May 90 07:44:15 GMT
References: <1990May23.102905.8689@athena.mit.edu> <13757@csli.Stanford.EDU> <54856@microsoft.UUCP>
Reply-To: roger@procase.UUCP (Roger H. Scott)
Organization: proCASE Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 14

In article <54856@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes:
>...
>The implied complaint being that virtual functions are slower than virtual
>static data members?  -- This need not be the case.  Or are you worried about
>typing pfoo->classname(); verses pfoo->classname; ???

Speed is *an* issue, but not *the* major issue.  Virtual static data members
require only space enough for a slot in the vtbls plus the space for the data
itself in those classes that redefine the data; a virtual function returning
the same value requires a vtbl slot, the space for the data, *plus* the space
for the code for the function (small, but positive).  It is also inconvenient
to have to define both the function and the data when all I want is the data.
Lastly, virtual data is appealing to people like me who think orthogonality is
a GOOD THING in a language.