Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]
Date: 2007-11-06 17:05:45


Thank you for your input. Much appreciated. That's fair enough that you
are not overwhelmingly impressed. :-) I do agree that "the savings don't
seem to be large compared to hand-written code". Although the main
advantages that I see are not on the implementation side but rather on the
interface side which is pure interface. Otherwise, all the scaffolding
currently hidden in that pimpl will go to the base class.

As for verbosity, it's certainly a matter of taste. I personally hate
writing comments. So, I tend to write self-commented code. :-)

Thanks again,

"Marc Mutz" <marc_at_[hidden]> wrote in message

I've been more thinking about the attached scenario. I'm not sure it's
it, since the savings don't seem to be large compared to hand-written
and the need to spell out the forwarding Base(implementation*) is a bit
(maybe that can be solved in C++0x?), but that should give you the idea.
Maybe someone better at template magic than I am can coerce this into a
workable thing. The need for verboseness in referring to
pimpl<Class>::implementation strikes me as a likely candidate for
improvement, e.g.



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at