Nathan,

Thanks for your comments.

In article <6e6p4a$cm3$1@shell7.ba.best.com>,
  ncm@nospam.cantrip.org (Nathan Myers) wrote:

> The ObjectSpace implementation is non-conforming.  If you stay away
> from their allocators, and a variety of other small differences from
> the Standard, your code might be reasonably portable.

I do. Any use of non-conformant features will be forbidden by
coding guidelines. By the way, where can I find the latest version
of the C++ standard (I have the Dec.2 1996 version)?

>
> >I also use Rational Rose/C++. An inclusion of appropriate standard C++
> >headers instead of forward declarations (recall that I use ONLY references
> >or pointers for Stadard C++ classes in my headers) increases reverse
> >engineering of my C++ headers in 20-50 times.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand "increases reverse engineering of my
> C++ headers in 20-50 times".  In any case, Rational could speed up
> handling of standard headers, without help from forward-declarations,
> if they cared to do it.

Reverse engineering of the following very simple header:

   class string;
   // #include <string>

   class X
   {
   public:
     void f(string& s);
   };

took approx. 2 sec. (30 sec using <string> include). It looks like Rational
guys have other priorities. Rose/C++ has lots of more serious deficiencies
compare to inefficient reverse engineering. We'll see how Rose 98 will
address at least some of them.

Dmitriy

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]