Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Rainer Deyke (rainerd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-06-10 07:48:41
On 09.06.2016 20:59, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> The "p" stands for "private" not for pointer. The defining property of the
> pimpl idiom is that the private implementation type is left incomplete in
> the interface: the pointer is opaque.
I do, of course, define my implementation class in a .cpp file, with
only a forward declaration in the .hpp file. Since I'm paying the price
of pimpl, I might as well get the full benefit.
-- Rainer Deyke (rainerd_at_[hidden])