Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site smu
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!smu!mike
From: mike@smu
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Using the Macintosh Toolbox with C
Message-ID: <20800049@smu>
Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 21:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: smu.20800049
Posted: Mon Dec  9 21:06:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 04:46:30 EST
References: <3021@sun.uucp>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:sun.uucp:3021:smu:20800049:000:1101
Nf-From: smu!mike    Dec  9 20:06:00 1985


Re: Interfacing to Toolbox with C (Mechanisms)

I not so sure about the claim that in-line traps are neccessarily better.
Remember that C-style strings must be converted to Pascal strings, and
vice-versa.  When toolbox routines are called through glue routines, 
the conversion code is isolated.  With inline traps, the calls to the
conversion routines are scattered throughout the program.

On the other hand, if the programmer is able to preserve Pascal style
strings in order to save conversion time, that might be an advantage 
to the in-line trap system.  Conversion time doesn't seem to be much
of a problem, however.  A profile report of a Megamax program shows
that the string conversion is usually less than a tenth of a percent 
of the total time.  The bulk of the time is spent in the ROM.

Oh well, I really don't have too much conviction either way on this
issue.


Mike McNally            SMU     -----------------------------------------
mike@smu                        "Is there Christmas in the hippie world?"
...{convex|texsun}!smu!mike     -----------------------------------------