From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-27 13:30:48
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "Rob Stewart" <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]>
> | > | > trying to make a polymorphic object behave like a value object is
> | > | > confusing a best.
> | > |
> | > | Who does it confuse? Pimpl is a commonly used and well understood
> | > | pattern for doing just that.
> | >
> | > Pimpl is an ugly hack for compilation firewalls.
> | Regardless of your opinion of the technique, Dave's statement
> | holds.
> there is no requirement that a Pimpl class should be copyable.
What is your point? When I wrote "Pimpl" I was referring to a
programming idiom; people commonly use a clone() function on the impl
to make a Pimpl copyable, and I claim it causes no major confusion.
Whether or not some hypothetical textbook description of "Pimpl" has a
copyability requirement is irrelevant.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk