Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-28 22:35:29

On 2016-05-29 00:25, Chris Glover wrote:
>> 
>> https://github.com/yet-another-user/pimpl
>> 
> I would personally use this, I am sure of that, as I type this in by 
> hand
> using unique_ptr all the time.

Glad to hear that... and IMO the proposed design does have advantage 
over unique_ptr-based pimpl as IMO unique_ptr hardly has any advantage 
over the raw pointer -- even the destructor has to be explicit 
non-default and non-inlined. When the proposed design IMO cuts down on 
implementation minutia.

> 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.

I feel that the proposed policy/manager-based design allows us to supply 
a manager as per your requirements. I personally have never used such 
design but I am certainly eager to see it implemented, tested and 
incorporated... if pimpl gets its "foot in the Boost door" so to speak.