C++ pimpl

so so at so.so
Sun Jan 22 16:19:20 PST 2012


On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 02:07:29 +0200, so <so at so.so> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:39:23 +0200, so <so at so.so> wrote:
>
>> I have been asking that for some time now, i am afraid you won't get  
>> much of an audience.
>> You can get rid of both additional allocation and indirection but it is  
>> not pretty. We could definitely use some help/sugar on this.
>>
>> http://www.artima.com/cppsource/backyard3.html
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Implementation_hiding_139625.html
>
> There is another issue Walter forgot to mention in the article.
> I think there might be a way but looks like we also loose the  
> "destructor".
> Which means we are all the way back to the  
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opaque_pointer.
>
> Walter, is there a way to get around destructor limitation?

1. Lose, not loose.
2. I linked the wikipedia page to point to the "C version" not the others.
I was wrong calling them taft types (it is the name of the Ada version).


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list