From: Vladimir Batov (batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-04 00:06:25
> You consider pimpl part of the interface? Interesting... I've always
> thought of it as an implementation detail to build compiler firewalls.
> I.E. any class I've made using the pimpl idiom I could have built the
> same interface with more external dependencies and heavier compile times.
If your question was about pimpl<> itself, then I misunderstood your
question. Although given pimpl<> provides at least some of the public
interface it could be considered as such. Although I probably tend to
consider it an implementation glue between interface and implementation. To
figure out why I inherit publicly from pimpl<> you might like to try
inheriting privately (which I never do. I use aggregation insted) and see
what functionality becomes unavailable.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk