From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-07 13:27:06
Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein_at_[hidden]>
>>
>> Ergo I restate my case that this library should NOT be called Pimpl.
>> Maybe PimplHolder or something like that, but calling it Pimpl
>> confuses at least two people :-)
>
> I was never confused as to whether this library would magically
> implement the impl class, though I think Asger may have flirted
> with the idea of forwarding functions. Nevertheless, I can see
> calling the class pimpl_ptr, if that suffix would clarify matters
> for you.
Let's not forget that the first P in pimpl stands for 'pointer'. :-)