Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 17:58:40

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Rob Stewart <rstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On May 31, 2016 5:41:54 PM EDT, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Chris Glover <c.d.glover_at_[hidden]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> 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? :)
>
> The upside is not writing some calls one way and others the other way on
> the same object, and having to remember which is which.
>

So, don't use the dot syntax. :)

Emil