Subject: Re: [geometry] Default model for Ring Concept should *be* Container, not inherit from it
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-02-15 12:36:02
On 15 February 2012 16:58, Volker SchÃ¶ch <vschoech_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I wonder why you bothered to make boost::geometry::model::ring a type of its own, merely wrapping the Container type.
Even if it wasn't wrap, it would be a standard-compliant sequence type
with random access anyway.
> Some say that inheriting from an STL type is practically always a bad idea,
> and the same rationale applies here.
Yes and now, unless you want to raise a praticular issue.
However, I personally agree it is potentially a bad idea to inherit publicly.
The ring could inherit privately (be composit of) and declare
delegating to the actual implementation.
> I am not being pedantic, here is my case in point.
> The current implementation requires some ugly syntantic hacking to achieve a very simple and natural thing:
BTW, _TPolygon does not feel like a C++ standard-kosher identifier.
> (If you are puzzled by my passing a vector by value,
> you might want to read http://cpp-next.com/archive/2009/08/want-speed-pass-by-value/
> by Dave Abrahams.)
I believe nobody is puzzled.
Unless pre-move semantic compiler is required, this is fairly natural
-- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net