[Corelinux-public] A

[Frank V. C. <fr...@co...>]

> Simple accessor/mutator functions should be written in the class declaration and
> declared as inline. This way there will be no overhead.

I think caution is in order here. While you can go inline to gain
performance (issue of optimize switches still open) it also means that
the implementation changes will require a more significant rebuild on
behalf of the application develop using the class libraries. So what
happens is that all applications that (hopefully) use CoreLinux++
libraries will be forced to re-distribute their applications if we
change the inline definition.    

I will also defer back to my original position that we don't know what
behavior is introduced by extensions to classes we provide. 

So in regards to the OOA/OOD 4.1 I believe that in general we stick to
the use of accessors and mutators instead of direct member manipulation
until which point we have empirical evidence for a specific case where
we are choking in performance.


-- 
Frank V. Castellucci
http://corelinux.sourceforge.net
OOA/OOD/C++ Standards and Guidelines for Linux
http://www.colconsulting.com 
Object Oriented Analysis and Design |Java and C++ Development