Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components Subject: Re: Co-ordinating the polymorphism in C++ Message-ID: <27C6E8FC.2A70@tct.uucp> Date: 23 Feb 91 22:13:16 GMT References: <1991Feb16.121825.15353@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <27BFDF44.3EA6@tct.uucp> <6453@stpstn.UUCP> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 22 According to cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox): >In article <27BFDF44.3EA6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>The more checking that can be done by the compiler, the better. > >Assertions are checked by the application's running image, not by the >compiler. Of course. What I meant was, the programmer writes the condition once, and the compiler inserts the code _where it is needed_, thus saving grunt work. In particular, when one member function calls another, it should be possible to delay any class consistency checking until the outermost member function returns. >>But I am not willing to jump on the Objective-C bandwagon ... > >There's an Objective-C bandwagon? Where?! Who do I see to join? ;-> What, didn't you know? You're the driver... -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "It's not a security hole, it's a SECURITY ABYSS." -- Christoph Splittgerber (with reference to the upage bug in Interactive UNIX and Everex ESIX) Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com