Should too many virtual functions raise a red flag?
| satm2008 (149) | |||
| @ropez: >>suppose they are more complex, each function may have a different set of subclasses that it handles, and there may be more than two levels in the class hierarchy. I would not design a program as such in which it would have to handle hundreds of function check through a virtualy common function from their base class. The design would be different in such case when there are hundreds of functions, as OO concept is to divide a big module into small objects and work on :) | |||
| jsmith (958) | |||
| BTW, I suspect many compilers have limitations on the number of virtual functions a single class can have. This is due to the way compilers handle pointer-to-virtual-member-functions. Without having actually looked at the GCC source, I'd bet that it has a limitation of 65,535 virtual functions. [This is because GCC would have no way to store a pointer to the 65,536th or beyond virtual member function]. | |||
| ropez (312) | |||
| For those that are interested: There's a new discussion related to this topic here: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_thread/thread/c16097aad186f98d# | |||
Pages: 1 2
This topic is archived - New replies not allowed.
