Subject: Re: [boost] [pimpl] No documentation for pointer semantics
From: Vladimir Batov (vb.mail.247_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-06 20:54:06
Thank you for chiming in in support. I felt surrounded and outnumbered...
Pete Bartlett-2 wrote
>>Well, that was a few nervous hours when I felt my familiar Pimpl world was
> crashing all around me...
> FWIW, the worldview around where I am is similar to yours - very natural
> have common scaffolding for the two sorts of "compiler firewall" (to avoid
> using the word pimpl!) - those with value semantics and those with
> shared-const semantics.
Indeed, in my mind having two sides of that "coin" is quite natural... and I
feel Rob agrees with us on that... he is just "vehemently" against calling
It is only now that I realize how unfortunate that Pimpl name is... Never
occurred to me before... The funny part wore off and all we are left with is
confusion and disagreement on what it stands for.
Unfortunately, I do not feel that comfortable with "compiler firewall"
either as IMO it might be even more susceptible to strict interpretation.
> Your implementation seems a little better than ours
> - the semantics are right there in the base class name making it hard to
> miss for the user browsing the source.
If you have your own idiom-generalization solution, do you think we might
joing forces so to speak and to cherry-pick the best bits from the both
variants and come up with something better/simpler?.. Unless the dead simple
Sutter's version at http://herbsutter.com/gotw/_101/ indeed satisfies the
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/pimpl-No-documentation-for-pointer-semantics-tp4663510p4663643.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk