Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-01 01:38:43
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Vladimir Batov <
> 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 post.
> 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.
Yes I stand corrected. Different syntax, same idea.
I still don't think that it's that important of a feature, since my premise
is that there are no benefits to the member function call syntax.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk