George Greer wrote: > > > You mean local functions not shadow the global names? As in make their own > names not be 'buf'? > Yes, I can not remember currently if this is something in stock (probably not), but the local names buffer names should never be buf, if you're using globals. I learned the hard way :) > >If I am miss-understanding what there true purposes is, please > >let me know :) > > Their true purpose was to avoid having to define your own buffers for every > function since everything seemed to need some sort of buffer to work with. > The theory was that it would be faster on the programmer and computer if it > kept the 32 kilobytes worth of 4 buffers always allocated instead of > created on demand. To be honest, I have never worried about performance issues with code. There does not seem to be any issues with the way they are handled at the moment. I can see from some of the responses that globals are tought to be bad programming, but not why? I personally like them. If performance is an issue, it would seem to me that having globals handle stuff like message (send_to_xxxx) which is called so ALOT, would be benificial to performance. Rather than recreating a buf each time a function is called. Just my oppinion. -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/06/01 PST