Re: [boost] programming guidelines, prefer free functions

From: David Allan Finch (sarum_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-17 10:51:58

jsiek_at_[hidden] wrote:

> I have a suggestion for the boost programming guidelines.  As various
> boost members have pointed out in the past (most recently Dave), it is
> better to use free (non-member) functions over member functions in
> public interfaces.

I am probably a lone voice in the wilderness on but I
view that Coplin's (?) original analysis of this problem
is incorrect and hence his derived solution is incorrect
to.

His premises is that if you have a complex class you
can't extend it because you do not have access to
the fundamental fields. Hence it is better to have
access  to a smaller set of methods and
have complex functionality at namespace level.

This is an incorrect (IMHO) conclusion. If you
look at any real world physical implementation
of a system, you will find that the complex functionality
is rapped up in a new level of system. I.E. controllers.

One of the classic problems that is used to show
why there is a problem is extending the String
class. IMHO the problem is that the String
class is to complex and should have been implemented
as a controller of a StringBuffer. You would then
write your own String Manipulator or extend String
to change the String Buffer how you wished it to be
modified.

--
   /     The whole history of this invention has been a struggle
/\|/\    against time - Charles Babbage 1837 on the Analytical Engine
| K |    All Hail Discordia - Burn all Orange Books!
\___/    david.allan_at_[hidden] - http://www.ironfort.com