Subject: Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-05-28 22:35:29
On 2016-05-29 00:25, Chris Glover wrote:
>>
>> https://github.com/yet-another-user/pimpl
>>
> I would personally use this, I am sure of that, as I type this in by
> hand
> using unique_ptr all the time.
Glad to hear that... and IMO the proposed design does have advantage
over unique_ptr-based pimpl as IMO unique_ptr hardly has any advantage
over the raw pointer -- even the destructor has to be explicit
non-default and non-inlined. When the proposed design IMO cuts down on
implementation minutia.
> One addition I would like to see is a version where the heap allocation
> is
> avoided by storing an internal buffer in the base class.
I feel that the proposed policy/manager-based design allows us to supply
a manager as per your requirements. I personally have never used such
design but I am certainly eager to see it implemented, tested and
incorporated... if pimpl gets its "foot in the Boost door" so to speak.