On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:23:07PM +0000, José Fonseca wrote:
> struct function_table {
> ...
> void (*BlendFunc)(GLcontext *ctx, GLenum sfactor, GLenum dfactor);
> ...
> } driver;
> > and
> > class Context {
> ...
> void BlendFunc(GLenum sfactor, GLenum dfactor);
> ...
> } ;
> > You can't simply do
> > driver.BlendFunc = Context::BlendFunc;
No, you can't do that. The problem is not the rhs as you seem to think but the lhs. The rhs needs to be &Context::BlendFunc. What type does that have? void (Context::*BlendFunc)(GLcontext *ctx, ...)
> As I said above this can be done in C++, and without damage to > efficiency.
I doubt that. (JFTR, if I'm given the choice of programming in C++ or C, I'll pick C++. I'm really not being a C zealot)
> class TNL { > // A OpenGL function > virtual void Coord3f(GLfloat x, GLfloat y, GLfloat z) = 0;
^^^^^^^ pure virtual method. Depending on what you want to do with this, this will incur in a function call overhead, inline or not.
Unless C++ can figure out at compile time *exactly* which class is being invoked, I think... It's hard to know.
Anyway, I don't think Jose really wanted a virtual member here, as he definitely seems to want the only usage of these functions to be expanded inline, right? If so, the virtual keyword is unneccessary -- isn't it?
Keith
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
