K
kelvSYC
In C, can you make functions like this:
int foo(int a);
int foo(int a, char b);
....
etc.
int foo(int a);
int foo(int a, char b);
....
etc.
B
Ben Pfaff
kelvSYC said:
No.
T
Tristan Miller
Greetings.
Not in standard C, though your compiler may provide this functionality as a
non-standard extension. C++, as you're probably aware, does allow function
polymorphism.
Not in standard C, though your compiler may provide this functionality as a
non-standard extension. C++, as you're probably aware, does allow function
polymorphism.
J
James Harris
Ben Pfaff said:
Sadly not! ...... Options? Take a lead from the printf family -
variant names and/or va_args, pass a structure or use C++.
N
no
It has it's own advantages and disadvantages. C code turns out to make
smaller and more efficient executables when compared with C++, right?
S
Sheldon Simms
if so, then it's not because C lacks overloading of function names.
-Sheldon
N
no
I think overloading of functions *does* take up some extra memory when
compared
to using 2 functions with different names.
B
Ben Pfaff
[email protected] said:
I'd be very surprised. Why do you think so?
M
Mike Wahler
IMO you think wrong. A C++ function overload *is*
a function with a different name. C++ simply
'hides' this fact.
-Mike
N
no
Yes, but in doing so it takes up some extra steps which in turn results in
comparatively slower execution and more memory. Overloaded function
resolution is not as simple as the programmer himself naming the functions
differently.
It compensates this by features such as dynamic binding and hence may load
the function into memory only when required.
BTW do the latest C compilers use dynamic binding?
M
Malcolm
load the function into memory only when required.
C++ allows this
double root(double x);
double root(Quaternion q);
so you can take the root of a real or a quaternion using natural function
names. The C++ compiler will implement this by producing two functions with
mangled names, eg root_d and root_Quaternion. There is no runtime penalty
compared with writning two C functions with slightly different names.
However C++ also allows this
class number
{
public:
virtual void root(void) = 0;
};
Now we can declare "real" and "quaternion" as objects of type "number", and
provide for each a routine to reduce them to a square root.
The program decides what type "number" is a run time, and accesses the
function "root" through a pointer. There is therefore a speed and time
penalty compared with providing two directly-called C functions, though of
course the ability to use object-oriented design arguably compensates for
this.
Some platforms also put commonly-used library functions in separate modules
from the main executable. The OS may provide some sort of intelligent
management by only loading those functions which are needed at the time.
This has nothing to do with run-time binding in the C++ sense.
To answer the last question, you would have to clarify in what sense you are
using the term "dynamic binding".
B
Ben Pfaff
[email protected] said:
Overload resolution normally takes place at compile time, not
runtime.
Dynamic binding has nothing to do with function overloading.
Would you please cut it out with the 20-plus blank lines at the
end of every article?
J
Joona I Palaste
Ben Pfaff said:
But Ben! I have a 6-line signature! Surely that gives everyone else the
right to do whatever they want to?
--
/-- Joona Palaste ([email protected]) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"Holy Banana of this, Sacred Coconut of that, Magic Axolotl of the other."
- Guardian in "Jinxter"
N
no
Why don't you object those who use OE and break quotes instead?
M
Micah Cowan
[email protected] said:
Nonsense. Any extra steps/slower execution happens in the
*compiling* phase, not affecting the actual execution of your
particular application (I have yet to hear of a conforming C++
interpreter...), and will still happen much quicker than the
time it takes you to write out two distinct function names.
-Micah
G
Guest
Be kind to me. I am just learning.
I've heard that a "hello" world program on C++ takes up more space when
compared with C.
Is that wrong?
J
Joona I Palaste
[email protected] said:
I've heard that a "hello" world program on C++ takes up more space when
compared with C.
Is that wrong?
Generally speaking, yes. It is also wrong that a "hello" world program
on C++ takes up *less* space when compared with C.
Neither the C standard or the C++ standard specify *anything* about how
much space the program should take. Therefore any claim that "A {C,C++}
program takes up {more,less} space than a <insert language here>
program" is invalid.
--
/-- Joona Palaste ([email protected]) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"To err is human. To really louse things up takes a computer."
- Anon
B
Ben Pfaff
[email protected] said:
One rude or incorrect behavior does not justify another.
J
Joona I Palaste
Tell that to Clockmeister.
--
/-- Joona Palaste ([email protected]) ---------------------------\
| Kingpriest of "The Flying Lemon Tree" G++ FR FW+ M- #108 D+ ADA N+++|
| http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste W++ B OP+ |
\----------------------------------------- Finland rules! ------------/
"We sorcerers don't like to eat our words, so to say."
- Sparrowhawk