Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 20:25:15

On May 28, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Vladimir Batov <Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> and IMO the proposed design does have advantage over unique_ptr-based pimpl as IMO unique_ptr hardly has any advantage over the raw pointer -- even the destructor has to be explicit non-default and non-inlined.

<nitpick>  You keep saying this and it is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.  The correct statement is not that far off of what you’re saying, and does not invalidate your point.

The unique_ptr-based pimpl has to have an outlined destructor, but it can (and should) be defaulted:

Book::~Book() = default;

Howard