Rob Stewart-6 wrote
... On June 6, 2014 4:59:47 AM EDT, Vladimir Batov <
vb.mail.247@
> wrote:
... my offering of pimpl::pointer_semantics and pimpl::value_semantics seems to make sense.
That's the problem. It isn't the Pimpl Idiom anymore.
Well, that was a few nervous hours when I felt my familiar Pimpl world was crashing all around me... after looking closely it seems my "extended" interpretation of Pimpl to still be the Pimpl Idiom. :-) First, Pimpl == Handle/Body == Bridge. Now I open GoF pg. 151 -- the Bridge chapter. The Applicability section -- you want to share an implementation among multiple objects (perhaps using ref. counting). The Consequences section -- Hiding implementation details from clients. You can shield clients from implementation details, like the sharing of implementor objects and the accompanying ref. counting mechanism (if any). The Implementation section -- 3. Sharing implementors. In fact, the Implementation section goes as far as to call one-to-one relationship between Abstraction and Implementor a degenerate case of the Bridge pattern. I.e. Gof sees pimpl::pointer_semantics, a.k.a. "Bridge with Shared Implementation" to be the proper Bridge when pimpl::value_semantics to be a degenerate one... although I feel it's a "bridge" :-) to far. Do I get a cookie? :-) -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/pimpl-No-documentation-for-pointer-semant... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.