Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
[color=blue]
> Here is what Bjarne Stroustrup has to say about coupling in "The Design[/color]
and[color=blue]
> Evolution of C++":-
>
> QUOTE
> By decreasing the coupling between a user and an implementer, abstract
> classes provide an answer to people complaining about long compile times
> and also serve library providers, who must worry about the impact on users
> of changes to a library implementation.
> UNQUOTE[/color]
Look up the "Dependency Inversion Principle".
C++ enables very large scale applications by matching logical decoupling
(interface-oriented programming) with physical decoupling (forward class
declarations, pure virtual functions, bald references & pointers, etc.).
[color=blue]
> To anyone who thinks that discussion of coupling is off topic for this
> newsgroup, I would say that if one accepts the FAQ as authoritative on[/color]
what[color=blue]
> is / is not on topic, and interprets its wording strictly, then perhaps[/color]
you[color=blue]
> are right. However, my view is that such topics should be of interest to
> anyone who wants to use C+ seriously, and I think it would be a pity to
> exclude discussion.[/color]
Screeching about topicality is often an excuse for "I can't think of a C++
angle for your post."
--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces 
