Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 18:59:29

On 1/06/2016 09:12, charleyb123 . wrote:
> This is why I'm such a fan of CRTP (curiously-recurring-template-pattern),
> where it should work for this PIMPL design with no virtual and no overhead.
>
> I've been quiet on this thread, but:
>
>    *- I like the PIMPL pattern very much
>    *- I like your approach
>    *- I want no overhead
>    *- I vote CRTP
>    *- CRTP also allows template-member-functions (requested by Chris, also
> desired by me)
>    *- I'm generally disappointed with namespaces

This already uses CRTP, eg:

struct T : public pimpl<T>::shared {...};

Is there some other application of this that you actually meant instead?