Re: [boost] programming guidelines, prefer free functions

From: Milutin Jovanovic (miki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-17 13:22:37

From: "Gary Powell" <Gary.Powell_at_[hidden]>
> o) It can reduce compile time dependencies, if you place the free
functions
> in a separate include file. Then things which require
> access to the object include only the definition.h and things which
> use the free functions include the objectUtility.h file.

I am sorry for being this blunt but I simply refuse to change a line of my
code to accomodate compilation performance. I am not using Microsofts
precompiled headers (stdafx stuff, I do use automatic precompiled headers),
and from the same reason I will not compromise in the least my design and/or
code for any other similar reason. If the split makes sence on the design
level, then sure. But just telling me that a compile takes 2, 4 or 6 hours
does not cut it for me.

> Regarding Jeremy's example if you don't own the interface/code to
> Joe::Vector or suzy::vector_add adding a member function is not an option.
> i.e. Using third party software. If you go ahead and modify the include
> files to joe's vector, whenever you get an update you are required to
repeat
> this modification. Ick!

I never suggested changing original files. Just deriving a wrapper. I have
put it in the same namespace, but that is both allowed and not necessary if
you don't want to.

> The issue is a that a class should provide no more member functions than
are
> necessary. Just what that minimum set is of course open to discussion and
> endless debate.

Agreed on both points :-).

Miki.