By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
454,605 Members | 1,400 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 454,605 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Conversion constructor

P: n/a
Which provides better performance, a conversion constructor or an
overloaded operator?

Nov 10 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
* exad:
Which provides better performance, a conversion constructor or an
overloaded operator?
Yes.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Nov 10 '06 #2

P: n/a

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* exad:
Which provides better performance, a conversion constructor or an
overloaded operator?

Yes.
Looks like part of Alf's response was lost (censored?). Anyway, I can
supply the missing information:

The function that takes less time (or requires fewer system resources,
depending on the performance metrics selected for the comparison) is
the one that provides the better performance.

Greg

Nov 10 '06 #3

P: n/a
exad:
Which provides better performance, a conversion constructor or an
overloaded operator?
Depends entirely on the implementation, and how the code has been written.
Best thing is to test it out yourself.

--

Frederick Gotham
Nov 12 '06 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.