On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Steven Watanabe <watanabesj@gmail.com> wrote:
AMDG
Artyom wrote:
There are recently lots of discussions about current development issues.
I would like to point to one small but extremely important issue (from user point of view).
Boost has too many logic in header part of library, by meaning too much I mean painfully too much.
I think that Boost should adopt as policy:
1) All implementation related code **should** be put in sources. 2) Any non-template based class should have opaque/d/pimpl pointer in its body.
I am against such a policy. Such decisions should be left to the library author and the review process.
In principle you're right, however most, even brilliant programmers, don't think that physical coupling is a big problem. That's the real problem, and it can only be addressed by a global requirement. But that's pointless in the case of Boost. First, most people will disagree with such a policy; we'll have endless arguments whether a "simple" function should be inline (it shouldn't if that's at all possible). Second, once physical coupling has you, it's extremely difficult to remove (the opposite -- introducing coupling to buy performance -- is always trivial.) Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode