Re: [gobo-eiffel-develop] Object-oriented byte-codes for regularexpressions?

[Colin P. A. <co...@co...>]

>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Bezault <er...@go...> writes:

    Eric> Assuming that from the client point of view they have the
    Eric> same interface (only the implementation differs), as a
    Eric> client of the library I'm only concerned in speed and memory
    Eric> usage.

So I should wrap a C library then?

    Eric> Now you might say that compiler writers should make
    Eric> it so that the cost of non-expandedness + dynamic binding
    Eric> should not be noticeable compared to giant inspect ;-)

I'd rather say allow ineritance of expanded types.
What are the issues apart from space layout (which could be solved by
forbidding conforming inheritance if attributes are added, or any
function/attribute redefinition, and use non-conforming inheritance
syntax for these cases)?
-- 
Colin Adams
Preston Lancashire