Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 19:48:18

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Vladimir Batov <
Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 2016-06-01 05:03, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The problem from language design point of view is that in C++ the "dot
>> syntax" can only be used with member functions, but member functions have
>> access to the private data, which means that they must participate in the
>> type definitions (encapsulation), which means they can't be called without
>> the type being complete. The C++ solution to this problem is to use only
>> abstract types with no data members in header files, but that has virtual
>> function call overhead compared to the C-style approach.
>>
>> It would have been useful for C++ to allow the declaration of non-friend
>> "member" functions outside of the type definition. This would require no
>> change in syntax.
>>
>
> Interesting... and liberating... and dangerous... :-) Aren't you
> suggesting to actually officially support encapsulation violation?

No, I said non-friend. Look, there is no semantic difference between
allowing non-friend member functions to be added without changes to the
type definition on one hand, and allowing non-friend free functions to be
added without changes to the type definition on the other hand. Neither
breaks the encapsulation; the difference is entirely syntactic.

> Say, by your book I can write a new free-standing "member" function to
> your class and cause quite a bit of mischief in there.

Not without having access to the private/protected stuff, which you
wouldn't have.

Emil