> Just curious: is this what FLTK3 is doing..? > http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/technical/general-programming/the-c-pimpl-r1794 > > I haven't touched FLTK3 yet, and haven't taken the time to figure it out, > but just wondering if that's the "trick.."
I came across this technique when I used to follow comp.object and read Herb Sutter's Guru of the Week column in the C/C++ Report. It was also one of the many techniques used by John Lakos to reduce code dependencies and therefore compile times in large C++ projects and I tried to implement it in my code, alongside Robert C. Martin's ideas in http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrinciplesOfObjectOrientedDesign My experience, with my own small one-man projects, was that it's a bit of overkill. If you introduce the Pimpl idiom, abstract classes for the Dependency Inversion Principle, and try to isolate the main code from the GUI, you end up with a forest of similarly-named classes spread across 3 or 4 related (sets of) header and source files. However, if you want to maintain a stable set of interfaces, for a large code base, especially one released as a library, then I can see the merit of the Pimpl idiom. For FLTK, I think it would require a lot of implementation details to be moved out of the header files... Cheers D. _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list fltk-dev@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
