delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | "Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman" <ozzy AT kasterborus DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> |
Newsgroups: | comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,rec.games.programmer |
Subject: | Re: pointer to function ?? |
Date: | Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:15:13 -0000 |
Organization: | COLT Internet Services |
Message-ID: | <2061CEBD9141D1118CEF080009DE1692B92235@sun.panews.press.net> |
References: | <6c7ltq$ms1$1 AT o DOT online DOT no> <6c7u5l$mub$2 AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <01bd4107$bba0dc60$77111111 AT jfisher DOT team17 DOT com> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | sun.panews.press.net |
Lines: | 28 |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
James E Fisher wrote in message <01bd4107$bba0dc60$77111111 AT jfisher DOT team17 DOT com>... >The first idea of a pointer to the code is the fastest way as there is only >one call to the required function (after the address of the function has >been fetched). Using a SWITCH statement is slower as it can end up as a >list of IF() statements by the compiler. Agree with you 200% here. >You also need to think about debugging. Using the pointer to a function is >much cleaner to debug than having to wade through switch statements. Could not disagree more. As someone who's been on the receiving end of maintenance of such programs, I can tell you it's a BASTARD debugging this sort of thing: following the program trace back to the last time that pointer was assigned. Especially if it can be assigned through other pointed-to functions or in conditionals etc etc... The switch() statement is INFINITELY clearer and easier to understand. It's just slower. Ozzy -- +-+ Paul Ian Harman +-+-+-+-+-+-+- Ozzy +-+ Games Guru & Sci-Fi Admirer +-+ -+- ozzy AT kasterborus DOT demon DOT co DOT uk +-+ http://www.kasterborus.demon.co.uk -+-
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |