kits (like Gtk+) have a complex OO design.
Not to mention the fundamental difference between message-based GUIs
(like Win32) verses callback based GUIs (like X) verses signal/slot
based libraries (like Qt).
It's not impossible, but it's very very difficult.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
are different based on typename, not on
traits). The traits approach seems fundamentally flawed as two separate
types could share the same traits.
This was all just a quick hack. I just discovered this thread this
morning so feel free to ignore all of it :-)
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
you think that a factory class is still useful?
Perhaps we can take this discussion off the list and figure out what
the requirements of a factory class would be that virtual constructors
wouldn't provide.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
___
Unsubscribe
came up, I thought I'd see what people thought.
Here's the site:
http://clam.rutgers.edu/~aliguori/factories/
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
David B. Held wrote:
Christophe Meessen wrote:
[...]
Would there be any interrest in such thing for boost ? If there are
better solution I would be happy
it even more generic, let me know (I'm very intrigued by
the prospect of metaclasses in C++).
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
