From: Asger Mangaard (tmb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-06 03:31:25
I've uploaded an updated version.
> Rob Stewart wrote:
> In the pimpl library case, the pimpl member functions I was
> referring to were as simple as they get. Now, taking another
> look, I note that the policies inline some functions that
> probably shouldn't be inlined. As coded in the version of the
> library I have, for example, base::get() is much too big to
> assume inlining is a good idea (it constructs and throws an
> exception if a condition is satisfied). If you change
> base::get() to simply return the dereferenced pointer, then it
> should be inlined. Then, pimpl::operator -() will be an inlined
> call to base::get(), and base::get() will be inlined to nothing
> more than a pointer dereference. Thus, using a pimpl will be
> just the same as using a raw pointer (when using the member
> selection operator, at least).
I've now inlined all the pimpl functions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk