Re: GObject extension propose (GContainer)

["Alan M. Evans" <ame1 extratech com>]

On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 04:28, Tim Janik wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> 
> > Qui, 2006-06-15 �13:00 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom escreveu:
> 
> >> All of that just to say... I cannot count the times I've thought to
> >> myself that
> >> GtkContainer should really just be GContainerIface, and implemented by
> >> whatever interested objects that want to parent other objects...
> >
> >  That's interesting, but I wonder what is the runtime penalty of
> > interface lookup compared to normal class structure lookup?  Is it
> > really OK to use an interface for this, or is it better just to add a
> > new virtual methods to the GObject class?
> 
> the lookup penalties are negligible.
> type node/class lookups and is_a checks are O(1);
> interface class lookups and conforms_to checks are O(ld(N)), where
> N is the number of interfaces a type node conforms to.

Your assertion that the penalties are negligable is not really supported
by your response, unless the constant is also known for both orders.