PHWinfo - Afficher un message

09/04/2008, 07h39

"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:47fc487e$0$23834$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi...
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> lbonafide@yahoo.com said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> And in C, there's absolutely no way to know who's fiddling around with
>>> your struct members because you can't restrict access to them.
>>
>> Wrong. Maybe *you* can't restrict access to them, but I can, and so can
>> quite a few others in comp.lang.c. The technique is not difficult.
>
> I have always detested this kind of argument. "Maybe you can't, but we
> who are better than you can", "it's quite easy", and then don't even
> show this "easy" solution at all (which usually involves ugly hacks and
> jumping through completely unnecessary hoops).
>
> Reminds me of the C-hackers who insist that it's "easy" and "feasible"
> to use dynamically bound "member functions" in structs, as if that
> somehow made C as good as C++ (yet the big problem with that hack is
> that each "member function" of the struct increases the size of the
> struct, which in many cases is a completely useless waste and makes that
> struct larger and more inefficient).

Is this on topic:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....b16567e49c42fc

?

09/04/2008, 07h39	#22
Chris Thomasson Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: C++ more efficient than C? "Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message news:47fc487e$0$23834$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi... > Richard Heathfield wrote: >> lbonafide@yahoo.com said: >> >> <snip> >> >>> And in C, there's absolutely no way to know who's fiddling around with >>> your struct members because you can't restrict access to them. >> >> Wrong. Maybe you can't restrict access to them, but I can, and so can >> quite a few others in comp.lang.c. The technique is not difficult. > > I have always detested this kind of argument. "Maybe you can't, but we > who are better than you can", "it's quite easy", and then don't even > show this "easy" solution at all (which usually involves ugly hacks and > jumping through completely unnecessary hoops). > > Reminds me of the C-hackers who insist that it's "easy" and "feasible" > to use dynamically bound "member functions" in structs, as if that > somehow made C as good as C++ (yet the big problem with that hack is > that each "member function" of the struct increases the size of the > struct, which in many cases is a completely useless waste and makes that > struct larger and more inefficient). Is this on topic: http://groups.google.com/group/comp....b16567e49c42fc ?