[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       boost
Subject:    Re: [boost] [pimpl] Proposal. Determining interest.
From:       Vladimir.Batov () wrsa ! com ! au
Date:       2007-11-06 22:05:45
Message-ID: OF3C090363.CEC01117-ONCA25738B.0077E3D8-CA25738B.0079592C () wrsl ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Marc,

Thank you for your input. Much appreciated. That's fair enough that you 
are not overwhelmingly impressed. :-) I do agree that "the savings don't 
seem to be large compared to hand-written code". Although the main 
advantages that I see are not on the implementation side but rather on the 
interface side which is pure interface. Otherwise, all the scaffolding 
currently hidden in that pimpl will go to the base class.

As for verbosity, it's certainly a matter of taste. I personally hate 
writing comments. So, I tend to write self-commented code. :-)

Thanks again,
Vladimir.

"Marc Mutz" <marc@kdab.net> wrote in message 
news:<200711061818.54220.marc@kdab.net>...

I've been more thinking about the attached scenario. I'm not sure it's 
worth 
it, since the savings don't seem to be large compared to hand-written 
code, 
and the need to spell out the forwarding Base(implementation*) is a bit 
ugly 
(maybe that can be solved in C++0x?), but that should give you the idea. 
Maybe someone better at template magic than I am can coerce this into a 
workable thing. The need for verboseness in referring to 
pimpl<Class>::implementation strikes me as a likely candidate for 
improvement, e.g.

Thanks,
Marc

Thanks,
Vladimir.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]