[interfacekit] Re: BString

One more tidbit:  premature optimization is the root of all evil. 
Therefore, what you're proposing is the *correct* thing to do until 
testing shows a need for further optimization. =)

e

Erik Jaesler wrote:
> Unless you're doing something wacky in String() that really sucks up the 
> cycles, I think this is a perfectly valid way to go.
> 
> e
> 
> Jack Burton wrote:
> 
>>Hi all.
>>I hope you all won't be upset by another question :)
>>I'm approaching the completion of BString (some methods are well tested, 
>>other aren't, and a pair aren't implemented, but it will be in short time),=
>> 
>>and I was wondering.... Often I have some function which are similar, for 
>>example:
>>
>>1. Prepend(const char *string)
>>
>>and
>>
>>2. Prepend(const BString &string).
>>
>>These functions call a private utility function (_DoPrepend),
>>but I am thinking if it would be better for the (2) to just call the first
>>(i.e.
>>
>>Prepend(const BString &string)
>>{
>>=09Prepend(string.String());
>>}
>>
>>Yes, this mean a little performance loss, but it would have the undubious 
>>vantage that there would be less code =3D=3D less bugs.
>>Anyway, this is just an example, and I would be glad if someone took a 
>>moment and threw a look to our BString implementation, to understand what I=
>> 
>>am saying.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
> 
> 
>

Other related posts: