On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 02:07:29 +0200, so <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:39:23 +0200, so <[email protected]> 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).
