ID:1337157
 Jul 28 2013, 2:40 am
|
|
If I define a proc as a global does it create extra overhead? Should I instead be defining datums to house specific procs and then refrencing that datum in a global instead?
| |
|
Jul 28 2013, 3:05 am
|
|
Jp
 |
I very much doubt it creates any kind of overhead. I wouldn't make special datums specifically to hold utility procedures that naturally should be global (such as the classic get_steps proc, for example).
|
I meant, for example, I have a set of very specific scoreboard procs, that seems kind of redundant to have them as global, when I could instead use a datum.
I just thought it might be more efficient. I didn't mean moving built in procs to datums, that would be weird. | |
Makes no odds on efficiency, you can throw that particular word right out of the window to start. P:
In terms of design, there might be some benefit to utility procedures living under some datum or other, to help shorten their name, make them more readable etc. Basically using the datum as a namespace. Otherwise speaking though, *shrug* do what you like. | |
