Re: [boost] Pimpl Again?

On 2016-06-01 10:25, Howard Hinnant wrote:

On May 28, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:

...

and IMO the proposed design does have advantage over unique_ptr-based pimpl as IMO unique_ptr hardly has any advantage over the raw pointer -- even the destructor has to be explicit non-default and non-inlined.

<nitpick> You keep saying this and it is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. The correct statement is not that far off of what you’re saying, and does not invalidate your point.

The unique_ptr-based pimpl has to have an outlined destructor, but it can (and should) be defaulted:

Book::~Book() = default;

Howard, my most humble apologies. English is not my first and its subtleties stubbornly escape me. The least of all I sought to degrade std::unique_ptr. Truly. Unreservedly. I cringed myself when I read what I wrote because I left out an important part -- "in pimpl-related context". And I keep saying those things not because I am trying to degrade unique_ptr but because IMO unique_ptr was developed for a very different purpose. It fits the purpose perfectly... it's just not a good fit for the pimpl idiom... something Sutter suggests in his GotWs over and over again. As for Book::~Book() = default; I am afraid I have to disagree. I suspect that won't work. Because the compiler will try to inline ~Book() (i.e. call unique_ptrBook::implementation destructor) and for that Book::implementation needs to be complete. So, ~Book() even with an empty body needs to be explicit in the implementation file. Am I right?