Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-01 04:20:19

On May 31, 2016 7:09:22 PM EDT, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:05 PM, rstewart <rstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> "Emil Dotchevski" <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Rob Stewart <rstewart_at_[hidden]>
>wrote:
>> > > On May 31, 2016 5:41:54 PM EDT, Emil Dotchevski <
>> emildotchevski_at_[hidden]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Chris Glover
><c.d.glover_at_[hidden]>
>> > > >wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >I'm generally not in favor of adding stuff to C++. What's the
>>upside in
>> > > >this case? To be able to say p.do_something() instead of
>> > > >do_something(p), because the latter offends Java programmers? :)
>> > >
>> > > The upside is not writing some calls one way and others the other
>>way on
>> > > the same object, and having to remember which is which.
>> > >
>> > So, don't use the dot syntax. :)
>>
>> Not all functions can be non-members.
>
>Do you mean e.g. virtual functions? They can be hidden behind free
>function wrappers.

I had in mind operators like +=, for example.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)