From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-06 13:43:44
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Woodruff" <Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden]>
To: "boost" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 12:10 PM
Subject: [boost] Platform Neutrality - Users choice to pollute the
> Here's another option:
> As I suggest before, to use a secondary class with the specific
> implementation in it, why not make it a flag that the user can set whether
> to use a "PIMPL" or just a normal instance of it. Some people might rather
> not have <windows.h> or <pthread.h> include in their dependency
> this is after all, one of the key points of the abstraction.
1) This won't help any with the readability of the code.
2) This will require duplicate code.
3) This will be much harder to maintain.
4) I very specifically do *NOT* include any of the windows headers today. I
could go the extra mile and not include <pthread.h> as well, but there's not
much of a compelling reason to do so, since that header doesn't define
numerous macros that are likely to conflict with user code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk