Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 22:04:24

On 2016-06-01 11:09, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> ...
> What I mean by non-friend member is something that is currently not
> supported in C++, which is defined/declared/called using the member
> function syntax, but has no access to the private or protected members 
> of
> the class. So:
> 
> struct foo; //incomplete
> void foo::do_something();
> 
> would be semantically the same as:
> 
> struct foo; //incomplete
> void do_something( foo * );
> 
> the only difference being in syntax: the former would be callable using 
> the
> dot syntax.

Uh, understand. So, it's actually member SYNTAX for non-member 
functions. Exactly as in the proposal that Peter sited. So, how the 
"non-friend" qualification's got into the discussion? It's not in the 
proposal. Friend or no-friend has no difference, right?

That brings me back to the original Robert's question about 
accessibility scope that you addressed with "friend"... Something that I 
feel is "restoring data+behavior association after breaking it".