Date: 2008-03-31 19:15:57
"vicente.botet" <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> First of all, I think that a pimpl library should have a place in boost,
> I think that the pimpl idiom do not scale very well (see below).
> Even if your library is usable in simple cases, I would like to see how
> can manage more complex cases. And if no satisfactory solution to this
> is possible, that the library states explicitly when it can not be used.
Would it be possible to elaborate that exactly you mean by "more complex
cases"? Inheriting from a pimpl-based class? I think it covered. What
else? Not like my own deployment experience is of any guidance but still
I've been using this idiom in my every-day development for about a year
and have not come across something that I felt was not a good fit for that
idiom. I'd rather say that the pimpl idiom in general does not handle well
simple (rather than complex) cases where the overhead of creating private
implementation on the heap is not affordable.
> Do you think to write the library documentation before the review? Even
> there is a tutorial in DDJ, IMHO, you should spend some time on the
> documentation of the library before the review.
In addition to the tutorial I have API documented in the header in the
format for doxygen. Although I have to confess when I did run it through
doxygen it did not seem to produce anything I saw valuable so I did not
include that doxygen-generated file. Will look into it again though.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk