Re: object-oriented C programming
Sam Couter <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The zero overhead rule bugs the crap out of me. How can you call a piece of
> memory an object, if that piece of memory carries no information about what
> it really is? It's not really an object, it's just a piece of memory that
> the compiler knows (at compile time, not run time) to treat like an object.
I think you're confusing two meanings of the word "object". The
one you're thinking of is taken from the phrase "object-oriented
programming". The other is that used by the C standard. From
C89 section 3.14:
object: A region of data storage in the execution
environment, the contents of which can represent values.
Except for bit-fields, objects are composed of contiguous
sequences of one or more bytes, the number, order, and
encoding of which are either explicitly specified or
implementation-defined. When referenced, an object may
be interpreted as having a particular type; see 220.127.116.11.
So in C (and, to some extent, C++), an object is just a region of