Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>
> There is another variation of the idiom, sometimes called "hidden
> state", which doesn't have the shortcoming in the first place:
>
> class foo
> {
> public:
> foo();
> foo(int);
>
> int f() const;
> void g(double*);
>
>
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> >
> > There is another variation of the idiom, sometimes called "hidden
> > state", which doesn't have the shortcoming in the first place:
> >
> > class foo
> > {
> > public:
> > foo();
> > foo(int);
> >
> > int f()
>
> Here's an example I just cooked up of using the PP lib to solve a
> classic C++ OO problem: repeated boilerplate in the definition of
> Pimpl classes. Paul, if you want to put it (or something like it) in
> the PP lib docs, you're welcome to.
>
Hi Dave,
Pretty cool!
Small note: instead of 'in
Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > Here's an example I just cooked up of using the PP lib to solve a
> > classic C++ OO problem: repeated boilerplate in the definition of
> > Pimpl classes.
>
> There is another variation of the idiom, sometimes called
> "hidden state", which d
David Abrahams wrote:
> Here's an example I just cooked up of using the PP lib to solve a
> classic C++ OO problem: repeated boilerplate in the definition of
> Pimpl classes.
There is another variation of the idiom, sometimes called "hidden state",
which doesn't have the shortcoming in the first p
Here's an example I just cooked up of using the PP lib to solve a
classic C++ OO problem: repeated boilerplate in the definition of
Pimpl classes. Paul, if you want to put it (or something like it) in
the PP lib docs, you're welcome to.
// Copyright David Abrahams 2003. Permission to copy, use,
