Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

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])