Re: [Simulavr-devel] Uniform the code

[address@hidden]

On Sat Apr 11 17:34 , "Michael N. Moran"  sent:

>address@hidden wrote:

>> What reasons for avoiding pointers apply to the
>> atmega48 that do not apply to the atmega128?
>> 
>> If pointers are useful,
>> two of the reasons for avoiding them could be avoided with smart pointers.
>
>I assume that you mean to ask if pointers are useful within
>the context of the atmega128. I further assume that you mean
>to ask if they offer some advantage over implementing this
>containment as simple objects.

Actually I was being deliberately vague.
The side in favour of pointers has yet to speak.
Mostly I was trying to get comments on the utility, if any,
of having different aggregation mechanisms in different cpus.

Eric has voted for consistency.

>> A smart pointer could be made so that it had to be
>> initialized and so that its destructor deleted its target.
>
>Yes, but "smart" pointers are an additional level of
>complexity that is only warranted if there is a need
>to use pointers in the first place.

The additional complexity isn't significant.
I'm just suggesting that the availability of smart
pointers eliminates the ease of correct coding issue.
The speed issue remains.

>> That said, adding a level of indirection will slow things down a bit.

Eric's comment on speed suggests a vote against pointers.
I haven't noticed any votes for pointers.

--
Michael Hennebry
address@hidden
"War is only a hobby."
---- Msg sent via CableONE.net MyMail - http://www.cableone.net