4 ms·
I don't think of pimpl as a tool for speeding up compilation, but for black box encapsulation. If the compile time (when adding a method) is really an issue yo
by gumby 3y ago
I don't think of pimpl as a tool for speeding up compilation, but for black box encapsulation.
If the compile time (when adding a method) is really an issue you can chop up and reconfigure your include files. A pain, but perhaps saves you time in the long run.
Of course (waves hands) modules will magically improve things...someday.
- colonwqbang 3y agoI think it can be both things. Haven't you ever seen someone do struct Thing; struct OtherThing; in lieu of just including "thing.h"? I see it frequently in real life code bases and I can't see a reason for it other than compilation time optimisation.
- gumby 3y agoSure, I do that all the time too. But you can't call a method (or look inside Thing, or pass it as an argument, only a pointer to it) without including the definition. Hmm, there might be some interesting linker hacks to patch things up post compilation. But then you'd want some way to do the forward declaration for cases where Thing could have been passed in registers...
- DerekL 3y agoThis is sometimes required to break dependency cycles. Also, you can use this to rearrange declarations in the same file.
- germandiago 3y agoPimpl is both. I use it as black box also, but it does both things.