Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 18:15:30
On 2016-06-01 07:58, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Rob Stewart <rstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> The upside is not writing some calls one way and others the other way
>> the same object, and having to remember which is which.
> So, don't use the dot syntax. :)
Indeed. If fact, with "your" approach we can't "use the dot syntax"...
And that's the "problem". :-) It's not a criticism. It's merely a fair
observation. I myself 've come to C++ with a considerable C experience
and I do not "cringe" seeing "your" free-function-based API. Others
might object stronger as we are entering the "style area" where people
fight tooth and nail over nothing. :-) Even I must say that from the
"purist" point of view forcing free-function API kinda violates the very
basic OO paradigm -- the association between data and behavior. From
practical point of view it's "meh, big deal".
Please do not get me wrong. I am not criticizing your approach. In fact,
to me it feels surprisingly potent just using the tools we've had
"forever". I feel that it is unlikely to "fly" with "general programming
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk