FW: inline constructors and assignment operators

[Michael D. Berger]

[...]
> > 
> > "Michael D. Berger" <m.d.berger@ieee.org> writes:
> > 
> > > Are inline constructors and assignment operators ok?
> > > They are very short, but I head that there may be a problem.
> > 
> > The problems, if any, are the same as for other member functions:
> > 
> > Conceptually, encapsulation is at least partially broken if a class
> > reveals (part of) its implementation details.
> > 
> > "Physically", modifications on an inline member function require
> > tranlation units depending on the definition of the 
> member's class to
> > be recompiled. Modifications of encapsulated member functions'
> > definitions only require the translation unit containing 
> the modified
> > member functions' definitions to be recompiled. This can be a huge
> > difference.
> 
> My inline methods are kept in separate files are included at
> the bottom of the .hh files.  How does this impact condiderations
> of encapsulation and recompile time.
> 
> Additionally, while I did not originally say so, my main concern
> is execution performance.  Are there any issues here?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike.
> 

My apologies.  I did not notice that this list is inappropriately
set to prefer private replies.

Mike.
--
Michael D. Berger
m.d.berger@ieee.org