On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, MenTaLguY wrote:
Indeed. I think this should go in our coding style document (there should of course be exceptions for things like certain types of simple utility classes or generic algorithms).
One other thing to consider is that once you're doing this, you need not have a 1:1 Interface:Implementation mapping. Often you can share a single interface among several related classes.
[1] On fairly small scales, implementation hiding does become counterproductive in C++.
*Nod* We started using this approach for the individual dialog classes themselves, but found that it looked unnecessary. Likely, few .cpp's will be including specific dialog headers, so the cost of inclusion will be slight. For generic access to dialogs, the base Inkscape::Dialog class can be used, along with routines in Dialog::Manager for managing the dialogs' memory and initialization.
Bryce