Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: charleyb123 . (charleyb123_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-01 07:56:08

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Vladimir Batov <
Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 2016-06-01 11:30, charleyb123 . wrote:
>> ...
>> In short, what I like:
>> *- some kind of "std_pimpl<>" provides a standardized interface, and
>> "plumbing"/implementation.
>> *- CRTP in the "std_impl<>" allows for a zero-cost compile-time
>> implementation-override.
>> *- If necessary, implementation can permit "std_pimpl<>" to be
>> parameterized with merely a "Foo" declaration.
> Seems like the proposed pimpl has it all from the list. If not, could you
> please give an example of what you want but the proposed pimpl falls short.
> I'll try and see if I can accommodate your case.

This approach uses no namespaces.

Overrides can be free-functions, or fully scoped as members of
application-specific types, with no possibility of ADL intercepting the
intended implementation.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at