Re: [boost] Should Boost adopt pimpl/d-pointer as much as it can?

Subject: Re: [boost] Should Boost adopt pimpl/d-pointer as much as it can?
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-24 13:25:29

on 23.03.2010 at 20:48
 Josh Faust wrote :
>> was that an argument?
>> if so i say that separating declaration and implementation for non
>> template code is a natural practice in C and C++ development
>> i.e. declaration -- in headers (*.h), implementation -- in *.cpp or *.c
>> personally i like the compile-once-link-any-time-you-want principle
> Your comment made it sound like you wanted things to be header-only as much
> as possible.  Auto-linking is not header only -- it only works on msvc, and
> as you said it still requires you to set up your lib paths.
no
my comment was specifically on the following words:

on 21.03.2010 at 23:16
 Artyom wrote :
> Libraries are not designed for simple users they are designed for
> developers that should be capable to solve these problems.

on header only libraries, again:
everything is good in it's season like some people say
if a lib has a set of some handy functions which inline perfectly then
there is perfect reason to make it header only
but if there are huge non-template member/non-member functions -- it's
better to separate the declaration part and implementation
all this imho of course

--
Pavel