Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-31 22:28:11
On 2016-06-01 11:40, Gavin Lambert wrote:
> On 1/06/2016 12:35, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> 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
> That's what extension methods are though, as I mentioned in my other
Even though Emil did clarify that he indeed meant "extension methods"
functionality, I really feel it begs for a correction as I feel we are
dangerously mixing the terms. Those "extension methods" are not members.
All the proposal suggests is to allow member syntax (the emphasis on
syntax) for free-standing functions... friends or no friends. "Member
syntax" to "member" is like Elvis' cuff-link to Elvis. :-) Big
I snipped the rest as I do agree with your point... which is not a bad
thing, right? :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk