From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-09 17:09:47
David Abrahams wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>Its operator() might as well be a virtual function. The fact that
>>>it's implemented differently is merely a matter of special-purpose
>>>optimization that wouldn't be worth the trouble for the vast
>>>majority of similar classes. I know that won't make an impression
>>>on you, because you don't seem to think there are many similar
>>>classes... but there are.
> In the literature at the very least. Read the GoF book or look up the
> pimpl pattern.
Which pattern in the GoF book are you referring to?
As for pimpl's, I still don't see the conenction. Where does virtual
functions even play a role in pimpls?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk