"Michael D. Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > "Physically", modifications on an inline member function require >> > tranlation units depending on the definition of the member's >> > class to be recompiled. Modifications of encapsulated member >> > functions' definitions only require the translation unit >> > containing the modified member functions' definitions to be >> > recompiled. This can be a huge difference. >> >> My inline methods are kept in separate files are included at the >> bottom of the .hh files. How does this impact condiderations of >> encapsulation and recompile time.
Not at all. This method may lead to nice results for the human reader, but it doesn't influence build dependencies. >> Additionally, while I did not originally say so, my main concern is >> execution performance. Are there any issues here? Compilers will consider inline members for inlining more often than out of line members, so yes, making a constructor inline may have an impact. Whether it has an impact for your program is a different question. I'd only inline a member function if a profiler suggested to me that doing so could have an impact. > My apologies. Apology accepted. > I did not notice that this list This is a newsgroup, not a list. > is inappropriately set to prefer private replies. I don't know what this means. _______________________________________________ Help-gplusplus mailing list Help-gplusplus@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gplusplus
