Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 19:09:22

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:05 PM, rstewart <rstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> "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.
>

Do you mean e.g. virtual functions? They can be hidden behind free function
wrappers.

Emil