Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 20:35:40

On 2016-06-01 10:03, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> On 2016-06-01 05:03, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
> 
> These are called "extension methods" and they don't violate
> encapsulation because they aren't "friends".
> 
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0079r0.pdf

Peter, thank you for the link. Interesting... Sometimes (hmm, make it 
"always") feel like an old mammoth failing to keep up with the herd... 
and grumbling "I am happy with the way it is" :-)

I am not sure if "to allow free function invocation syntax to invoke 
member functions and vice-versa" is exactly what Emil wanted. Quoting 
from the top --
the "declaration of non-friend "member" functions outside of the type 
definition". I read it as Emil wants it to be a "member" but declared 
"outside".