so at so.so
Sun Feb 26 21:48:00 PST 2012
On Sunday, 26 February 2012 at 21:03:11 UTC, Robert Klotzner
> Yeah, I got that. What I don't get is why it needs to be a
> Wouldn't a simple base class with a destructor suffice?
Indeed it would suffice. Nothing really special, i didn't want
pimpl to be a "one true base class" that you could do things like:
> Well my initial example was Qt. Take for example the QWidget
> class, you
> usually derive from it in order to implement custom widgets and
> with the
> PIMPL idiom it is ensured that your derived classes will not
> break upon
> addition of private fields in QWidget. It is a black box, a
> class does not have access to private fields.
> The whole purpose of my proposal is, to really hide private
> fields so
> that not just the API is stable, but also the ABI.
I understand. My use case was that i needed an alternative to C
way of doing it.
I was thinking that C++/D got namespaces, modules, class/struct
methods. It should be possible to improve C pimpl.
So instead of:
You would do:
Now you have a cleaner code, cleaner global namespace with zero
More information about the Digitalmars-d