On Sunday 25 September 2005 22:02, André Wöbbeking wrote:
> > But on the part about private structs, can I safely assume it is NOT
> > the norm to start moving member variables into private structs just
> > for compilation performance? In fact, I would expect that at each
> > opportunity to break BC, we would try to flatten the private structs
> > out where convenient.
>
> The main reason FOR d-pointers is BC. So I don't think that they are
> removed. That d-pointers also make the interface cleaner, reduce
> dependencies and improve compile time are a nice addons.

I am not suggesting the removal of the d-pointers; I understand the role they 
play in preserving BC.

What I am checking/suggesting is that the intent should be to flatten the 
private structures they point to into the parent structure at convenient 
(non-BC preserving) times even though that might imply an increase in compile 
time, because that is surely to be preferred to the run time overhead of two 
allocations/structures.

Otherwise some might think it a good idea to move *all* private members to the 
private structure pointed to by the d-pointer.

Thanks, Shaheed