Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Seth (bugs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-28 12:41:11
On 28-05-16 16:25, Chris Glover wrote:
> One addition I would like to see is a version where the heap allocation is
> avoided by storing an internal buffer in the base class. Yes, this means
> one needs to keep the size in sync between the impl and the header, but
> this can be an important optimization sometimes.
Don't forget about alignment requirements.
I agree. Pimpl serves different goals. If the goal is just to hide
implementation details (but not necessarily avoid recompilation on
implementation change) this is very welcome. Though, soon, you'd verge
to a "opaque value_ptr" where the value_ptr could have clone-semantics.
So, I can see a choice for "pure Pimpl" facilities, without any optional
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk