Boost logo

Boost :

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:
> 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.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at