|[4 earlier articles]|
|Re: Templates in C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-05-14)|
|Re: Templates in C++ davidm@flora.Rational.com (1995-05-16)|
|Re: Templates in C++ email@example.com (Greg Morrisett) (1995-05-17)|
|Re: Templates in C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-05-17)|
|Re: Templates in C++ email@example.com (1995-05-25)|
|Re: Templates in C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-05-29)|
|Re: Templates in C++ email@example.com (1995-06-23)|
|Re: Templates in C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-06-25)|
|Re: Templates in C++ email@example.com (1995-06-30)|
|Re: Templates in C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-07-12)|
|From:||email@example.com (Alex Colvin)|
|Organization:||Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA|
|Date:||Fri, 23 Jun 1995 03:42:48 GMT|
One of the things that forces recompilation of C++ programs is that
class definitions must list all their (private) members.
Is the main reason for this the need for structure sizes at
compile-time? Would link-time be sufficient? Could structure and stack
frame sizes be computed at link time as the sum of constants generated
by separate compilations?
Are their many linkers capable of performing such arithmetic? Could
they be used to relax language restrictions?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.