Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 17:41:54

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Chris Glover <c.d.glover_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > OTOH do note that in the header we may leave shared_ptr incomplete and
> > still declare a shared_ptr factory function. This leads to extremely lean
> > header files:
> >
> > namespace boost { template <class> class shared_ptr; }
> > struct foo;
> > boost::shared_ptr<foo> create_foo();
> > void use_foo( foo * );
>
> You're making a very compelling argument. Actually strong enough that it
> makes me want the uniform call syntax when I was previously on the fence
> about that feature.
>

I'm generally not in favor of adding stuff to C++. What's the upside in
this case? To be able to say p.do_something() instead of do_something(p),
because the latter offends Java programmers? :)

Emil