Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Since having to access all member variables indirectly would be a
> > completely useless overhead in non-diamond-inheritance situations, this
> > is not done by default.

> It sort of sounds like this would be just the thing for a runtime with 
> JIT to deal with, wouldn't it?

  And then you lose the advantage of shared libraries because each library
would have to be JIT-compiled for each program which uses it. Which was
the whole point.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   And then you lose the advantage of shared libraries because each library
> would have to be JIT-compiled for each program which uses it. Which was
> the whole point.

Well, I think JIT-compiled code is easier to compile than C#, for 
example. But yeah, the actual executable bytes would be different for 
each process running, or at least each program, if that's what you're 
trying to avoid.

I suppose you could also have two copies of the code in each library, 
one with and one without. Doubles the size somewhat of any routine that 
is affected by that. Select the right set of routines when you start up 
the program, or when you link the child class, or some such? I'm not 
sure when you'd pick in this case.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message