Re: [Boost-users] metafunction question

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] metafunction question
From: John Dlugosz (JDlugosz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-12 14:34:39

> While there are technical reasons not to do so (absence of virtual
> destructor), there are also non technical ones.
> 
> It simply doesn't make sense to use inheritance for this. Inheritance
> is
> for polymorphism, not code reuse.
> 
> This is why for example free functions that take any range are better
> than member functions.
> 

So, you would prefer to use a generic programming model rather than member-function calling syntax?  Do you write your classes to have only private virtual member functions, and declare non-member friend functions that take an instance as one of the parameters and call the virtual functions?  No public members at all!

If I have public member functions, and I want to extend that, it would be annoying to say "these 20 functions are members, and here is 1 more that is a non-member".






TradeStation Group, Inc. is a publicly-traded holding company (NASDAQ GS: TRAD) of three operating subsidiaries, TradeStation Securities, Inc. (Member NYSE, FINRA, SIPC and NFA), TradeStation Technologies, Inc., a trading software and subscription company, and TradeStation Europe Limited, a United Kingdom, FSA-authorized introducing brokerage firm. None of these companies provides trading or investment advice, recommendations or endorsements of any kind. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.