From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-04 17:38:04
on 3/4/00 7:16 AM, John Maddock at John_Maddock_at_[hidden] wrote:
> 4) To implement object factories - using either model (1) or (2) above.
> With respect to object factories I would favour Dave's template member
> functions for create - note that this is a superset of the copy constructor
> approach - it may also be *much* more effecient than relying on a copy
> constructor alone. I don't think it matters that its limited to maybe
> 0,1,2 or 3 arguments, if the limitation proves too much one can always
> revert to your approach and pass a temporary as a single parameter.
I am of the same mind here. One concern of mine is that too much of the C++
standard library has sacrificed convenience for generality, with the result
that there are no simple, convenient, and _common_ idioms for many simple,
common tasks. I suggested parallel approaches so that the the odd
11-argument constructor could be accomodated using the functor approach, but
everyone else could use the pool more naturally.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk