Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: rstewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 19:05:48

"Emil Dotchevski" <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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. :)

Not all functions can be non-members.