Re: C++ pimpl

[Timon Gehr]

On 01/23/2012 01:07 AM, so wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:39:23 +0200, so <s...@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?

This seems to work.

a.di:

final class A{
    private this();
    static A factory();
    T1 publicMember1(int x);
    T2 publicMember2(float y);
    T3 publicField;
    // ...
}

a.d:

class A{
    static A factory(){return new A;}
    T1 publicMember1(int x){ ... }
    T2 publicMember2(float y){ ... }
    T3 publicField;
    // ...
private:
    T1 field1;
    T2 field2;
}