Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

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 <
Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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
>>> "outside".
>>>
>>
>> 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.

Emil