Re: [boost] Re: Any interest in static_list?

From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-26 11:39:59

--- David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > [...]
> > - If the constructor of an object A references 
> > another object B and the translation units that contain
> > object B are referenced by the program,
> > then the program references all translation
> > units with the static declrations of A.
> 
> That sounds like it creates undesirable dependencies.  For example,
>
> 
>      // tu1.cpp
>      #include <iostream>
>      int main()
>      {
>         std::cout << "hello, world" << std::endl;
>      }
> 
>      // tu2.cpp
>      #include <iostream>
>      class Foo
>      {
>         // huge class declaration
>      };
> 
>      Foo::Foo()
>      {
>         std::cout << "Foo created" << std::endl;
>      }

Sorry, I don't see static declrations in this example
so the suggested rule doesn't apply here.

The rule would work in the following case.

//tu1
class A
{
 static void f();
};

void A::f() { ... }

//tu2
main()
{
   A a;
}

//tu3
class B
{
   B() { A::f(); }
}

B b;

The rule will ensure that the program references tu3 and 'b' will be instantiated.
It is true because the program explicitly references tu1 while tu1 is referenced
in a static declration in tu3.

If we overwrite tu2 as following (no static declrations).
//tu3
class B
{
   B() { A::f(); }
}
int b;

tu3 is not referenced by the program anymore because it doesn't have
a static declrations that use TU's that are already referenced
by the program.

Sure, it is a draft idea I don't know all potential implications of it.

Eugene

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com