[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: question about range_intersect() and range_contains() functions

From: Madan U Sreenivasan <madan_at_collab.net>
Date: 2006-07-06 15:14:33 CEST

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:38:57 +0530, Malcolm Rowe
<malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 05:44:45PM +0530, Madan U Sreenivasan wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:08:03 +0530, Malcolm Rowe
>> <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:
>> >Are these public functions? (I haven't looked). If so, making them
>> >macros would mean that we couldn't change the implementation, which
>> >might be a good reason to keep them as functions.
>> no these are static functions.
> Ok, so what's the benefit of using a macro here? (which is what I should
> have asked first).
> The compiler can easily inline a static function if it thinks that's
> the right thing to do (given the current optimisation settings), and
> functions have argument type-checking and obvious side effects, which
> macros don't.

I think its better to have single line functions as macros, than rely on
the compiler to detect it.

> Really, the rule should be that we only use macros where we absolutely
> have to.

and when do you think it is? (am asking as a matter of trying to
understand :)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 6 14:44:24 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.