From: Asger Mangaard (tmb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-04 11:38:50
> Caleb Epstein wrote:
> I guess my problem is one of terminology. In my mind, a Pimpl class holds
> the pointer to the Implementation as well as providing the methods that
> forward to the Implementation. This implementation only holds the pointer
> and manages the memory, which makes me think it should be called a
> PimplHolder, and not a Pimpl.
Are you asking for functions that modify the pimpl's content? Those are
not part of the original idiom. What you suggest is merly comfort
functions, ones that can still be added manually of course.
I just don't see the trouble of accessing the pimpled class through a
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk