=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Le Mardi 11 F=E9vrier 2003 14:18, Jonathan Wakely a =E9crit :
> On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 04:25:11PM +0100, Christophe de Vienne wrote:
> > Le Vendredi 7 F=E9vrier 2003 23:10, Stefan Seefeld a =E9crit :
> > > The full C++ code now lives in a set of headers. There
> > > was just not enough code independent of the actual
> > > character type to be put into .cc files.
> >
> > As far as this particular point, what I personnaly do with templated
> > class is that I still separate declaration and implementation into a .h
> > and a .cc/.cpp file.
> > Then I include the .cc/.cpp in the .h file so the templated
> > implementation is still visible by user code.
> > This make header much more clean and readable, and if one day we have t=
he
> > chance to have a c++ compiler which support the 'export' keyword, then
> > adaptation will be as easy as comment 1 line of code.
>
> "export" is widely misunderstood. It doesn't mean separate compilation
> of templates, and I'd be surprised if it sees much use even when more
> compilers support it. Herb Sutter has done some interesting articles on
> his experiences with the Comeau compiler, which now supports "export",
> and my impression is that the complications it raises outweigh the
> benefits (which apparently don't even result in quicker compilation!)
>
> Not that this should dictate .h/.cc policy in any way, I'm just being a
> C++ bore again!
You're certainly right about export. If ever it is supported efficiently it=
=20
will be time to use it and construct the application around it. Not now.
As far as keeping .h/.cc separation for templated class, it is essentially =
for=20
readability.
Christophe
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+SPxjB+sU3TyOQjARAupAAKDMVjW5BoH37o+Z8xn8dqNGQGioygCaApB0
tWoqJE7oDanradhRh6fj6Uo=3D
=3DIZ6t
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
