C++ pimpl

[so]

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?