Re: [boost] [pimpl] Some comments

Subject: Re: [boost] [pimpl] Some comments
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-06 09:01:32

On Friday 06 June 2014 08:57:57 Sohail Somani wrote:
> On 06/06/2014 8:41 AM, Mostafa wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 05:03:21 -0700, Sohail Somani
> > 
> > <sohail_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> On 06/06/2014 6:12 AM, Mostafa wrote:
> >>> When dealing with pimpl'd classes, the expected norm (in my experience)
> >>> for making deep copies is to use the clone function.
> >> 
> >> Why?
> > 
> > Existing convention, Java (clone), C# (Clone), Objective-C (copy), and
> > the RogueWave suite of C++ libraries (clone). Maybe this is just me, but
> > I view pimpl'd classes much like C#/Java references.
> 
> C++ has value semantics as a core feature so if your project has a
> different convention, that will surprise a C++ programmer who started
> programming in the last 5-10 years.
> 
> RogueWave and friends were initially written years ago when we didn't
> know what we know now about writing good C++ software. I used it and
> didn't enjoy it, but I'm sure it has improved since then.
> 
> That being said, projects have conventions and if it is a convention for
> you, that's fine. I wouldn't make everyone use this convention through
> Boost.Pimpl though.

I think both approaches have their cons and pros, and a good pimpl library 
should support both.

PS: I didn't look at the proposed library.