[osg-users] Change to Optimizer OptimizationOptions
pmartz at skew-matrix.com
Wed Nov 4 08:51:48 PST 2009
Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote:
> Oh, I love getting to wrangle theory with friends. ;)
You can call me an idiot if you want, and I'll still buy you coffee. :-)
> In the situation where they are unrelated state bits, being able to
> say stateBits.test(MY_STATE) it actually is perhaps more obvious and clear what's going on
> than doing it by hand with a bitwise operator.
I stand by my previous statement that it makes things less clear.
Suppose you're debugging and you encounter that in the code as you step
through the debugger. You now need to step in and make sure it's doing
the right thing, whereas (stateBits & MY_STATE) requires no debugging at
all. This new class becomes just one more chunk of code to debug and vet.
And if performance is an issue, I now have to wonder what the StateBits
class compiled to, whereas I know that (stateBits & MY_STATE) compiles
to exactly one instruction.
Sorry to disagree on this, but I would no sooner write my own class to
hide the bitwise AND operator than I would write my own class to hide
the 32-bit integer addition operator.
Like I said, it's Robert's call, and we'll all go with what he says.
More information about the osg-users